Commentaries: Defaull Hypothesis ofImagery Perspectives 39 Ruby, P., & Decety, 1. (2001). Effect of perspective taking during simulation of action: A PET investigation of agency. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 546-550 Smith, D., & Holmes, P. (2004). The effect of imagery modality on golf putting performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26,385-395. Ungerleider, S., & Golding, J. M. (1991). Mental practice among Olympie athletes.Perceptual and MotorSkilis. 72,1007-1017. White, A., & Hardy, L. (1995). Use of different imagery perspectives on the learning and per- formance of different motor skills. British Journal ofPsychology, 86, 169-180. Williams, S. E., & Cumming, J. (2011). Development and validation of the Sport Imagery Ability Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psych%gy, 33,416-440. The Development of Internai and External Imagery Perspectives: Interactions Among Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors Christian Collet and Aymeric Guillot UNIVERSITE CLAUDE BERNARD LYON 1, CRIS-EA 647 PERFORMANCE MOTRICE, MENTALE ET DU MATERIEL (P3M), 27, 29 BOULEVARD DU Il NOVEMBRE 1918, F- 69622 VILLEURBANNE CEDEX, FRANCE. Address correspondence to the fust author. Email: christian.collet@univ-Iyon1.fr Keywords: Motor Imagery; Sensory Systems; IndividuaJ Characteristics and DeveIopment; Task Requirements Morris and Spittle's (2012) article provides a timely and weIl conducted syn- thesis of the literature in the field ofmotor imagery. There is a detailed reference for anyone who wants updated knowledge in this area, but importantly, it further offers a hypothesis for the development of internaI and external imagery perspec- tives. The authors fust point out that the expression imagery perspective cornes from the organization of space that facilitates the mental representation of move- ment execution; that is, using the internaI perspective requires imagining an action as an actor, while during the external perspective, the participant is a spectator of the movement, which is perfonned either by the person or by someone else. This tertninology is widely used in sports psychology, although neurophysiological approaches in the imagery literature rely more extensivelyon the sensory systems. Several studies have examined the patterns ofbrain activation during differ- ent imagery modalities (e.g., visual vs kinesthetic imagery) to detennine whether each type of imagery is under the control of a uni-or multimodal process (Solodkin, Hlustik, Chen, & Small, 2004; Guillot et al., 2009). In fact, perception causes an individual sensory experience resulting from the integra- don of multiple sensory modalities. It is thus worth asking whether each indi- vidual is capable of distinguishing the main components of this mental experi- ence. For instance, visual imagery has been shown to activate mainly occipital and parietal regions (e.g., the precuneus), whereas the kinesthetic modality may, rather, activate motor are as (cortical and subcortical) and the inferior pari-