Abstract
Imagery studies have varied widely in the methods used to deliver guided imagery interventions. This variation has led to difficulties comparing studies and uncertainty as to what methods should be followed. A review is needed to evaluate the interventions to date to inform applied recommendations. The aim of this systematic review was to (1) assess the quality of intervention design, (2) investigate the extent to which interventions vary, (3) highlight the different methods that should be considered in the design and implementation of future interventions, and (4) investigate adherence to some of the current theories and models of imagery use. A total of 20 interventions administered between the years 2001 and 2011 were compared over 17 main areas, including imagery ability, duration, script development, delivery method, and adherence to the PETTLEP model and the bio-informational theory. The results of this review found evidence of many inconsistencies between interventions and demonstrate a need for more comprehensive practical guidelines. Recommendations are offered for the design of future interventions, including increasing imagery practice time and the use of personalised imagery scripts. Numerous questions are raised to strengthen and direct future research such as the need for continued modification of scripts throughout an intervention.
Appendices
Elements of the PETTLEP model.
| Element | Definition | Example |
| Physical | The extent to which the physical aspect of the imagery reflects that of the actual movement (e.g. body position, equipment, and clothing). | A weightlifter imaging while adopting the lifting position on the weight bench and griping the weight in their hand. |
| Environment | The imaged action should be carried out in the same environment as the actual action, both mentally (in the image) and/or physically (where the imagery is taking place). | A footballer imaging while standing on the match day pitch, in front of the goal posts and with a football in front of them. |
| Task | The imaged action should correspond as closely as possible to the actual action and at the same level of expertise. | A script describing a golf putt that is technically identical to the putt realistically used during physical performance. |
| Timing | The duration of the imaged action must be temporally equivalent to that of the physically performed action. | A basketball routine being imaged in real time. |
| Learning | The imaged action should evolve as an action is learnt and refined. | Adding new softball performance scenarios to the imagery content, to reflect new match experiences and an increase in the players’ imagery ability. |
| Emotion | The imaged action should include similar emotions and arousal levels to those experienced when actually performing the action. | A badminton player imaging feeling confident along with other positive emotions that are desired during performance. |
| Perspective | The view point of the imagined action should allow for focus to be placed on the necessary part of the action (1PP vs. 3PP). | Synchronised skaters adopting their preferred visual perspective whilst imaging their routine. |
Notes: Appendix 1 uses definitions from Cumming and Ramsey (2008) and Holmes and Collins (2002) and examples from interventions included in the current review.
A comparison of the 20 imagery interventions, in descending chronological order.
| Reference | Sport/ task | Outcome measures | Success | PEDro/SCED | Baseline measure of IA | Monitoring IA (supervision) | Duration | |||
| Weeks | Session (#/week) | Image (reps) | Total imagery | |||||||
| Velentzas et al. (2011) | Volleyball serve | Performance & imagery ability | Full-change | 7/11p | Control for IA (VMIQ) | (Supervised) | 7 | 10 min (2/week) | 10 min (1) | 2 h 20 min |
| Pain et al. (2011) | Football | Performance & perceived flow | No-change | 7/11s | ≥ Moderate IA (MIQ) | Questionnaire (independent) | 3 | 3 min (1/week) | 3 min (1) | 9 min |
| Lebon et al. (2010) | Weight lifting | Performance | Mod-change | 4/11p | Control for IA (MIQ) | Questionnaire (supervised) | 4 | 3 min 10 s (3/week) | 2 s (95) | 38 min |
| Ramsey et al. (2010) | Football penalty | Performance, SE & anxiety | Mod-change | 7/11p | ≥ Moderate IA (MIQ-R) | Questionnaire, diary (combination) | 6 | 1 min 40 s (4/week) | 10 s (10) | 40 min |
| Ramsey et al. (2010) | Football penalty | Performance, SE & anxiety | Mod-change | 7/11p | ≥ Moderate IA(MIQ-R) | Questionnaire, diary (combination) | 6 | 1 min 40 s (4/week) | 10 s (10) | 40 min |
| Mellalieu et al. (2009) | Rugby Union | Anxiety, confid & affect | Full-change | 7/11s | ≥ Moderate IA (MIQ-R) | Questionnaire, diary, meetings (combination) | 11 | 10 min (7/week) | 10 min (1) | 12 h 50 min |
| Guillot et al. (2009) | Basketball | Performance | No-change | 4/11p | Control for IA (MIQ) | Questionnaire (supervised) | 5 | 11 min (2.4/week) | 1 min 13 s (9) | 2 h 12 min |
| Smith et al. (2008) | Golf putting | Performance | Mod-change | 7/11p | ≥ Moderate IA (MIQ-R) | Meetings (independent) | 6 | 5 min (2/week) | 20 s (15) | 1 h |
| Smith et al. (2008) | Golf putting | Performance | Full-change | 7/11p | ≥ Moderate IA (MIQ-R) | Meetings (independent) | 6 | 5 min (1/week) | 20 s (15) | 30 min |
| Shearer et al. (2008) | Obstacle course | SE & task cohesion | Full-change | 7/11p | ≥ Moderate IA (MIQ-R) | Questionnaire, meetings (combination) | 6 | 10 min (5/week) | 10 min (1) | 5 h |
| Smith et al. (2007) | Hockey penalty | Performance | Full-change | 7/11p | ≥ Moderate IA (MIQ-R) | Diary, meetings (independent) | 6 | 5 min (7/week) | 30 s (10) | 3 h 30 min |
| Smith et al. (2007) | Hockey penalty | Performance | Mod-change | 7/11p | ≥ Moderate IA (MIQ-R) | Diary, meetings (independent) | 6 | 5 min (7/week) | 30 s (10) | 3 h 30 min |
| Smith et al. (2007) | Hockey penalty | Performance | Mod-change | 7/11p | ≥ Moderate IA (MIQ-R) | Diary, meetings (independent) | 6 | 5 min (7/week) | 30 s (10) | 3 h 30 min |
| Callow et al. (2005) | Horse racing | Confidence | Full-change | 7/11s | ≥ Moderate IA (MIQ-R) | Questionnaire, diary (combination) | 16 | 5 min (3.2/week) | 5 min (1) | 4 h 16 min |
| Smith et al. (2004) | Golf putting | Performance | No-change | 8/11p | ≥ Moderate IA (VMIQ) | Questionnaire, diary (independent) | 6 | 2 min 30 s (7/week) | 10 s (15) | 1 h 45 min |
| Calmels et al. (2004) | Softball | Imagery ability | Full-change | 8/11s | Observing IA change (VMIQ) | Questionnaire (independent) | 7 | 10 min (4/week) | 10 min (1) | 4 h 40 min |
| Cumming et al. (2001) | Synchronised skating | Imagery use & ability | Mod-change | 4/11s | Observing IA change (MIQ) | Questionnaire (supervised) | 5 | 10 min (2/week) | 10 min (1) | 1 h 40 min |
| Smith et al. (2001) | Hockey penalty | Performance | Mod-change | 8/11p | Control for IA (MIQ-R) | Diary, meetings (independent) | 7 | 3 min 20 s (3/week) | 10 s (20) | 1 h 10 min |
| Smith et al. (2001) | Hockey penalty | Performance | Full-change | 8/11p | Control for IA (MIQ-R) | Diary, meetings (independent) | 7 | 3 min 20 s (3/week) | 10 s (20) | 1 h 10 min |
| Callow et al. (2001) | Badminton | Confidence | Mod-change | 8/11s | ≥ Moderate IA (MIQ-R) | Diary, meetings (independent) | 3 | 5 min (7/week) | 5 min (1) | 1 h 45 min |
Notes: SE = self efficacy; IA = imagery ability, MIQ = Movement imagery questionnaire (Hall & Pongrac, 1983); MIQ-R = Movement imagery questionnaire revised (Hall & Martin, 1997); VMIQ, Vividness of movement imagery questionnaire (Isaac, Marks, & Russel, 1986).
(continued)
| Reference | SRM-propositions | Personalised | Modified | SR-training | Script presentation | Script timing | PETTLEP elements |
| Velentzas et al. (2011) | SRM | No | No | No | Researcher read | Before imagery, during physical practice | Physical, Environment, Task, Emotion, Perspective |
| Pain et al. (2011) | SRM | Yes | No | No | Audio | During imagery, before competition | Physical, Environment, Task, Emotion |
| Lebon et al. (2010) | SR | No | No | No | Researcher read | Before imagery, during physical practice | Physical, Environment, Task, Timing, Perspective |
| Ramsey et al. (2010) | SRM | No | No | No | Researcher or participant read | Before imagery, during and away from physical practice | Physical, Environment, Task, Emotion |
| Ramsey et al. (2010) | S | No | No | No | Researcher or participant read | Before imagery, during and away from physical practice | Physical, Environment, Task |
| Mellalieu et al. (2009) | SRM | Yes | No | No | Participant read | During imagery, before and away from competition | Physical, Environment, Task, Emotion |
| Guillot et al. (2009) | SRM | No | No | No | Researcher read | Before imagery, during physical practice | Physical, Environment, Task, Timing, Emotion, Perspective |
| Smith et al. (2008) | SRM | Yes | Yes | Yes | Participant read | Before imagery, away from physical practice | All |
| Smith et al. (2008) | SRM | Yes | Yes | Yes | Participant read | Before imagery, during physical practice | All |
| Shearer et al. (2008) | SRM | Yes | Yes | No | Participant read | During imagery, away from physical practice | Environment, Task, Learning, Emotion |
| Smith et al. (2007) | SR | Yes | No | Yes | Participant read | Before imagery, during physical practice | Physical, Environment, Task, Timing, Perspective |
| Smith et al. (2007) | SR | Yes | No | Yes | Participant read | Before imagery, away from physical practice | Physical, Task, Timing, Perspective |
| Smith et al. (2007) | SR | Yes | No | Yes | Participant read | Before imagery, away from physical practice | Task, Timing, Perspective |
| Callow et al. (2005) | SRM | Yes | No | No | Audio or participant read | During imagery, away from physical practice | Task, Emotion |
| Smith et al. (2004) | SRM | Yes | No | Yes | Participant read | Before imagery, away from physical practice | Task Emotion |
| Calmels et al. (2004) | SRM | Yes | Yes | Yes | Audio | During imagery, away from physical practice | Task, Learning, Emotion, Perspective |
| Cumming et al. (2001) | SRM | No | No | No | Researcher read | During imagery, away from physical practice | Task, Emotion, Perspective |
| Smith et al. (2001) | S | No | No | No | Participant read | Before imagery, away from physical practice | Task, Timing |
| Smith et al. (2001) | SR | Yes | No | Yes | Participant read | Before imagery, away from physical practice | Task, Timing |
| Callow et al. (2001) | SRM | No | Yes | No | Audio or participant read | During imagery, away from physical practice | Task, Learning, Emotion |
Notes: S = stimulus propositions; SR = stimulus and response propositions; SRM = stimulus, response and meaning propositions.
A summary of the key outcomes from the systematic review.
| Comparison | Key Outcomes |
| Quality of design | |
| PEDro and SCED | Mean scores of 6.4/11 and 7.4/11, respectively. |
| Imagery ability | |
| Baseline | Baseline measures of imagery ability were used to control for individual differences (n = 5), measure pre to post changes in imagery ability (n = 2), and to screen for an above moderate level of imagery ability (n = 13). |
| No association between baseline measures and intervention success (p = 0.920). | |
| Monitoring | Methods of monitoring included qualitative interviews (n = 10), training diaries (n = 11), and single-item questionnaires (n = 10). |
| No association between monitoring and intervention success (p = 0.480). | |
| Interventions that involved unsupervised imagery use were associated with a greater degree of monitoring (p = 0.036). | |
| Duration | |
| Intervention | Interventions ranged from 3 to 16 weeks in length (M = 6.45, SD = 2.8). |
| A strong, positive correlation between intervention duration (weeks) and intervention success (r = 0.670, p = 0.001). | |
| Imagery sessions | Imagery sessions ranged from one per week to one per day (M = 4.08/week, SD = 2.19). |
| No correlation between the frequency of imagery sessions and intervention success (r = 0.072, p = 0.38). | |
| The amount of imagery use in a single session ranged from 1 min 40 s to 11 min (M = 5 min 43 s, SD = 3 min 11 s). | |
| A moderate, positive correlation between the amount of imagery use in a single session and intervention success (r = 0.380, p = 0.048). | |
| Single image | The number of times the same image was repeated within a single training session ranged between 1 and 95(M = 12.95, SD = 20.95). |
| No significant correlation between the number of repetitions and intervention success (r = –0.228, p = 0.174). | |
| The duration of a single image ranged from 2 s to 10 min (M = 3 min 21 s, SD = 4 min 12 s). | |
| A near significant, moderate, positive correlation between duration of a single image and intervention success (r = 0.370, p = 0.057). | |
| Total imagery use | The total time participants were engaged in imagery use throughout the intervention ranged from 9 min to 12 h 50 min (M = 2 h 39 min, SD = 2 h 49 min). |
| A moderate, positive correlation between total imagery use and intervention success (r = 0.462, p = 0.021). | |
| Script development | |
| Content | Script content was informed using four sources of information: physical task, research, experience, and participants (PREP). |
| SRM-propositions | SRM propositions were incorporated in the majority of interventions (n = 13). |
| No association between SRM-proposition use and intervention success (p = 0.319). | |
| A near significant association showed interventions with performance outcome measures to incorporate meaning propositions less often than studies with psychological outcome measures (p = 0.056). | |
| Personalisation | Over half of the interventions incorporated personalised imagery (n = 12). |
| Successful interventions associated with personalised imagery (p = 0.040). | |
| Modification | Methods of script modification included intermittent consultations with participants (n = 3), layering (n = 1), and introducing new scripts (n = 1). |
| No association between the modification of imagery scripts and intervention success (p = 0.430). | |
| Delivery | |
| SR-training | SR-training was used in less than half of the interventions (n = 8). |
| No association between SR-training and intervention success (p = 0.758). | |
| Script delivery format | Imagery was either read aloud to participants (n = 4), read by the participants (n = 10), audio recorded (n = 2) or participants were given a choice (n = 4). |
| No association between delivery format and intervention success (p = 0.605). | |
| Integration of script and imagery | In the majority of interventions, participants used the script prior to generating the imagery (n = 13). |
| No association between the integration of script and imagery and intervention success (p = 0.494). | |
| Timing | Imagery scripts were used during physical practice (n = 5), before competition (n = 1), away from physical practice and competition (n = 11) and a combination of all three (n = 3). |
| No association between the time point of imagery use and intervention success (p = 0.146). | |
| Instructions | Authors in the majority of interventions did not report the imagery instructions given to participants (n = 14). Those that did appeared to follow recommendations from the PETTLEP model. |
| PETTLEP | Interventions incorporated an average of 4 PETTLEP elements. |
| No correlation between the number of elements used and intervention success (r = 0.059, p = 0.828). | |
| A strong, positive correlation between total PETTLEP elements used and year of study(r = 0.603, p = 0.017). | |
References
Ahsen, A. (1984). The triple code model for imagery and psychophysiology. Journal of Mental Imagery, 8, 15–42.Search in Google Scholar
Callow, N., Hardy, L., & Hall, C. (2001). The effects of a motivational general-mastery imagery intervention on the sport confidence of high-level badminton players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 389–400.10.1080/02701367.2001.10608975Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Callow, N., & Waters, A. (2005). The effect of kinaesthetic imagery on the sport confidence of flat-race horse jockeys. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 443–459.10.1016/j.psychsport.2004.08.001Search in Google Scholar
Calmels, C., Holmes, P., Berthoumieux, C., & Singer, R. N. (2004). The development of movement imagery vividness through a structured intervention in softball. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 27, 307–322.Search in Google Scholar
Choudhury, S., Charman, T., Bird, V., & Blakemore, S. (2007). Adolescent development of motor imagery in a visually guided pointing task. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 886–896.10.1016/j.concog.2006.11.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Collet, C., Guillot, A., Lebon, F., MacIntyre, T., & Moran, A. (2011). Measuring motor imagery using psychometric, behavioural, and psychophysiological tools. Exercise & Sport Sciences Reviews, 39, 85–92.10.1097/JES.0b013e31820ac5e0Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Cumming, J., & Anderson, G. M. (2013). Guided imagery. In M. D. Gellman & J. R. Turner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine (pp. 881–883). New York, NY: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Cumming, J., Olphin, T., & Law, M. (2007). Physiological and self-reported responses to different motivational general mastery scripts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29, 29–644.10.1123/jsep.29.5.629Search in Google Scholar
Cumming, J., & Ramsey, R. (2008). Imagery interventions in sport. In S. D. Mellalieu & S. Hanton (Eds.), Advances in applied sport psychology: A review (pp. 5–36). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Cumming, J., & Ste-Marie, D. (2001). The cognitive and motivational effects of imagery training: A matter of perspective. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 276–288.10.1123/tsp.15.3.276Search in Google Scholar
Cumming, J., & Williams, S. E. (2012). Imagery: The role of imagery in performance. In S. Murphy (Ed.), Handbook of sport and performance psychology (pp. 213–232). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199731763.013.0011Search in Google Scholar
Denis, M. (1995). Vividness of visual imagery and the evaluation of its effects on cognitive performance. In S. J. McKelvie (Ed.), Vividness of visual imagery. Measurement, nature, function and dynamics (pp. 136–138). New York, NY: Brandon House.Search in Google Scholar
Dunbar-Jacob, J. (2012). Minimising threats to internal validity. In B.M. Melnyk & D. Morrisson-Beedy (Eds.), Intervention research: Designing, conducting, analysing, and funding (pp. 91–106). New York, NY: Springer.10.1891/9780826109583.0006Search in Google Scholar
Etnier, J. L., & Landers, D. M. (1996). The influence of procedural variables on the efficacy of mental practice. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 48–57.10.1123/tsp.10.1.48Search in Google Scholar
Feltz, D., & Landers, D. M. (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor skill learning and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 25–57.10.1123/jsp.5.1.25Search in Google Scholar
Fournier, J. F., Calmels, C., Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. H. (2005). Effects of a season-long PST program on gymnastic performance and on psychological skill development. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3, 59–78.10.1080/1612197X.2005.9671758Search in Google Scholar
Goss, S., Hall, C. R., Buckolz, E., & Fishburne, G. (1986). Imagery ability and the acquisition and retention of movements. Memory and Cognition, 14, 469–477.10.3758/BF03202518Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Guillot, A., Nadrowska, E., & Collet, C. (2009). Using motor imagery to learn tactical movements in basketball. Journal of Applied Sport Behaviour, 32, 189–206.Search in Google Scholar
Hall, C. R. (2001). Imagery in sport and exercise. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 529–549). New York, NY: JohnWiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar
Hall, C. R., & Martin, K. (1997). Measuring movement imagery abilities: A revision of the movement imagery questionnaire. Journal of Mental Imagery, 21, 143–154.10.1037/t07979-000Search in Google Scholar
Hall, C. R., & Pongrac, J. (1983). Movement imagery questionnaire. London: University of Western Ontario.Search in Google Scholar
Hanin, Y. L. (2000). Individual zones of optimal functioning (IZOF) model: Emotions- performance relationships in sport. In Y. L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 65–89). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.10.5040/9781492596233.ch-003Search in Google Scholar
Hardy, L., & Fazey, J. (1990). Mental rehearsal. Leeds: National Coaching Foundation.Search in Google Scholar
Hinshaw, K. E. (1991). The effects of mental practice on motor skill performance: Critical evaluation and meta-analysis. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 11, 3–35.10.2190/X9BA-KJ68-07AN-QMJ8Search in Google Scholar
Hishitani, S. (1991). Vividness of image and retrieval time. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 115–123.10.2466/pms.1991.73.1.115Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, P. S., & Calmels, C. (2008). A neuroscientific review of imagery and observation use in sport. Journal of Motor Behaviour, 40, 433–445.10.3200/JMBR.40.5.433-445Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, P. S., & Collins, D. J. (2001). The PETTLEP approach to motor imagery: A functional equivalence model for sport psychologists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 60–83.10.1080/10413200109339004Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, P. S., & Collins, D. J. (2002). Functional equivalence solutions for problems with motor imagery. In I. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 120–140). London: Thomson.Search in Google Scholar
Isaac, A., Marks, D., & Russel, D. (1986). An instrument for assessing imagery of movement. The Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ). Journal of Mental Imagery, 10, 23–30.10.1037/t07980-000Search in Google Scholar
Jeannerod, M. (1994). The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 17, 187–202.10.1017/S0140525X00034026Search in Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M., Ganis, G., & Thompson, W. L. (2001). Neural foundations of imagery. Neuroscience, 2, 635–642.10.1038/35090055Search in Google Scholar
Lang, P. J. (1977). Imagery in therapy: An information processing analysis of fear. Behaviour Therapy, 8, 862–886.10.1016/S0005-7894(77)80157-3Search in Google Scholar
Lang, P. J. (1979). A bio-informational theory of emotional imagery. Psychophysiology, 16, 195–512.10.1111/j.1469-8986.1979.tb01511.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
Lang, P. J., Kozak, M. J., Miller, G. A., Levin, D. N., & McLean, A. (1980). Emotional Imagery: Conceptual structure and pattern of somato-visceral response. Psychophysiology, 17, 179–192.10.1111/j.1469-8986.1980.tb00133.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
Lebon F., Collet, C., & Guillot, A. (2010). Benefits of motor imagery training on muscle strength. Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association, 24, 1680–1687.10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d8e936Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Elkins, M. (2003). Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomised controlled trials. Physical Therapy, 83, 713–721.10.1093/ptj/83.8.713Search in Google Scholar
Marczyk, G. R., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2010). Essentials of research design and methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, K. A., Moritz, S. E., & Hall, C, R. (1999). Imagery use in sport: A literature review and applied model. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 245–268.10.1123/tsp.13.3.245Search in Google Scholar
Mellalieu, S., Hanton, S., & Thomas, O. (2009). The effects of a motivational general-arousal imagery intervention upon pre-performance symptoms in male rugby union players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 175–185.10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.07.003Search in Google Scholar
Morris, T., Spittle, M., & Watt, A. P. (2005). Imagery in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Search in Google Scholar
Nordin, S., & Cumming, J. (2005). Professional dancers describe their imagery: Where, when, what, why, and how. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 395–416.10.1123/tsp.19.4.395Search in Google Scholar
Orlick, T. (1990). In pursuit of excellence: How to win sport and life through mental training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Search in Google Scholar
Pain, M. A., Harwood, C., & Anderson, R. (2011). Pre-competition imagery and music: The impact on flow and performance in competitive soccer. The Sport Psychologist, 25, 212–232.10.1123/tsp.25.2.212Search in Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1985). Cognitive and motivational functions of imagery in human performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 10, 22–28.Search in Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ramsey, R., Cumming, J., Edwards, M. G., Williams, S., & Brunning, C. (2010). Examining the emotion aspect of PETTLEP-based imagery with penalty taking in soccer. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33, 295–314.Search in Google Scholar
Robin, N., Dominique, L., Toussaint, L., Blandin, Y., Guillot, A., & Le Her, M. (2007). Effects of motor imagery training on service return accuracy in tennis: The role of imagery ability. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 175–186.10.1080/1612197X.2007.9671818Search in Google Scholar
Rodgers, W., Hall, C., & Buckolz, E. (1991). The effect of an imagery training program on imagery ability, imagery use, and figure skating performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 109–125.10.1080/10413209108406438Search in Google Scholar
Schick, J. (1970). Effects of mental practice on selected volleyball skills for college women. Research Quarterly, 41, 88–94.10.1080/10671188.1970.10614951Search in Google Scholar
Sheard, M., & Golby, J. (2006). Effect of a psychological skills training program on swimming performance and positive psychological development. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4, 149–169.10.1080/1612197X.2006.9671790Search in Google Scholar
Shearer, D., Mellalieu, S., Thomson, R., & Shearer, C. (2008). The effects of an imagery intervention with motivational general mastery content upon collective efficacy perceptions for a novel team task. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 27, 293–311.10.2190/IC.27.4.bSearch in Google Scholar
Skoura, X., Vinter, A., & Papaxanthis, C. (2009). Mentally simulated mental actions in children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 34, 356–367.10.1080/87565640902801874Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Smith, D. (2011). Enhancing sports performance through imagery: The PETTLEP model explained with practical recommendations. The Sport and Exercise Scientist, 27, 18–19.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, D., & Holmes, P. (2004). The effect of imagery modality on golf putting performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 385–395.10.1123/jsep.26.3.385Search in Google Scholar
Smith, D., Holmes, P., Whitemore, L., Collins, D., & Devonport, T. (2001). The effect of theoretically-based imagery scripts on field hockey performance. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 24, 408–419.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, D., Wright, C. J., Allsopp, A., & Westhead, H. (2007). It’s all in the mind: PETTLEP-based imagery and sports performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 80–92.10.1080/10413200600944132Search in Google Scholar
Smith, D., Wright, C. J., & Cantwell, C. (2008). Beating the bunker: The effect of PETTLEP imagery on golf bunker shot performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 385–391.10.1080/02701367.2008.10599502Search in Google Scholar
Tate, R. L., McDonald, S., Perdices, M., Togher, L., Schultz, R., & Savage, S. (2008). Rating the methodological quality of single-subject designs and n-of-1 trails: Introducing the Single-Case Experimental Design (SCED) Scale. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 18, 385–401.10.1080/09602010802009201Search in Google Scholar
Thelwell, R. C., & Greenlees, I. A. (2003). Developing competitive endurance performance using mental skills training. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 318–337.10.1123/tsp.17.3.318Search in Google Scholar
Thomas, J. R., Nelson, K. N., Silverman, S. J. (2005). Research methods in physical activity (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Search in Google Scholar
Velentzas, K., Heinen, T., & Schack, T. (2011). Routine integration strategies and their effects on volleyball serve performance and players’ movement mental representation. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23, 209–222.10.1080/10413200.2010.546826Search in Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C. W., de Bie, R. A., Kessels A. G. H., Boers, M., Bouter, L. M., & Knipschild, P. G. (1998). The delphi list: A criteria list for quality assessment of randomised clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1235–1241.10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00131-0Search in Google Scholar
Vincent, W. J. (1999). Statistics in kinesiology (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Search in Google Scholar
Wakefield, C., & Smith, D. (2009). Impact of differing frequencies of PETTLEP imagery on netball shooting performance. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 4, 1–12.10.2202/1932-0191.1043Search in Google Scholar
White, A., & Hardy, L. (1998). An in-depth analysis of the uses of imagery by high-level slalom canoeists and artistic gymnasts. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 387–403.10.1123/tsp.12.4.387Search in Google Scholar
Williams, S. E., & Cumming, J. (2011). Measuring athlete imagery ability: The sport imagery ability questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 416–440.10.1123/jsep.33.3.416Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Williams, S. E., Cumming, J., & Balanos, G.M. (2010). The use of imagery to manipulate challenge and threat appraisal states in athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 339–358.10.1123/jsep.32.3.339Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Williams, S. E., Cumming, J., Ntoumanis, N., Nordin-Bates, S. M., Ramsey, R., & Hall, C. (2012). Further validation and development of the movement imagery questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 621–646.10.1123/jsep.34.5.621Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Wilson, C., Smith, D., Burden, A., & Holmes, P. (2010). Participant-generated imagery scripts produce greater EMG activity and imagery ability. European Journal of Sport Science, 10, 417–425.10.1080/17461391003770491Search in Google Scholar
Wright, C. J., & Smith, D. (2009). The effect of PETTLEP imagery on strength performance. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7, 18–31.10.1080/1612197X.2009.9671890Search in Google Scholar
- 1
See Appendix 2 for a summary of the main details drawn from each of the 20 interventions and Appendix 3 for a summary of the main results.
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston
