Mirror Therapy Case Study

The technique of mirror therapy was introduced by Dr. Ramachandran and it can be applied to the rehabilitation of phantom limb patients by improving physical movements. The illusion of movement in the affected body part and leads to muscle activity in the inactive phantom limb along with activity in the brain associated with that body part (Arya 2016). This is due to the role of mirror neurons, cells in the premotor cortex and inferior parietal lobule, which are stimulated when observing and physically conducting an action (Arya 2016). Mirror neurons help reorganize neurons in the damaged motor-cortex area of a patient since they have the ability to mirror observed motor actions in the brain. The purpose of this essay is to determine whether
wanted to determine whether movement time (MT) in milliseconds through mental rehearsal gave the same results as physical practice and what ratio of physical execution and rehearsal is optimal learning. Twenty five right-handed participants in this study were asked to grasp an object and place it into its designated slot as fast as they could in 240 trials by each group. The G0 group performed only through physical practice, G25 rehearsed for 60 trails and physically performed 180 times, G50 rehearsed 120 times and performed 120 times, and G75 rehearsed for 180 trails and performed physically of 60 trials. The MT was measured by the time first movement (MT1), reaching and grasping the object, and second movement (MT2), the insertion of the object in the slot. The position of the object varied from trail to trail. In the motor imagery test participants could only imagine or feel themselves doing the task. The MT of the first trial showed that subjects in groups G50 and G75, with a larger rehearsal component, were faster than G0 and G25. The results implied that mental rehearsal strengthens brain networks involved in sensory motor control. This study helped understand the role of observation in motor learning as it showed that different rates of imagery lead to different rates of learning. The limitations are the differences between the groups before training, the small size of the groups, the simplicity of the task and whether 240 trails are enough
It also implies that mental rehearsal for more than 120 trials is enough to reach the same performance outcome as 240 trails of physical practice alone. The G0 group reached a plateau of performance suggesting that only physical movement does not lead to improvements in MT. The MT of the first trial showed that subjects in groups G50 and G75 were faster than G0 and G25. In the last trail, differences in the MTs in groups G50 and G75 compared to G0 were not as different. However there was a difference between groups G75 and G25 for the last trial suggesting that mental rehearsal is better than no practice at all. The results also imply that mental rehearsal strengthens brain networks involved in sensory motor control thereby making learning by physical practice more effective. The study by Frank et al. showed the effect of physical practice was greater than that of mental since the group with only physical activity could perform the task better after three days of rest. Additional mental practice was not effective in enhancing motor performance. However, extending the practice phase of trials may have an effect on additional mental practice. Mental practice can promote structural development by affecting the perceptual-cognitive level during early motor learning but it may not transfer to the motor output level. This implies