Background: Virtual reality (VR) applied to patients with neck pain is a promising intervention to produce positive effects when used alone or combined with exercise. Therefore, the objective of this manuscript is to compare the effects of VR versus exercise treatment on pain intensity, conditioned pain modulation (CPM), temporal summation (TS) and functional and somatosensory outcomes in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (NS-CNP). Methods: A single-blinded, randomized clinical trial was carried out. A total sample of 44 patients with NS-CNP was randomized into a VR treatment group or neck exercises group. The intervention consisted of two treatment sessions per week, for four weeks and eight sessions. Four measurement moments (at baseline, immediately, 1 month, and 3 months after intervention) were considered. Pain intensity, CPM, TS, functional and somatosensory outcomes were measured. Results: Statistically significant differences were revealed for time factor (F = 16.40, p < 0.01, η_p² = 0.28) and group*time interaction for kinesiophobia (F = 3.89, p = 0.01, η_p² = 0.08) showing post-hoc differences in favor of the VR group at 3 months (p < 0.05, d = 0.65). Significant effects were shown for time factor (p < 0.05) but not for the group*time interaction (p > 0.05) for pain intensity, rotation range of motion (ROM), Neck Disability Index, pain catastrophizing, fear-avoidance beliefs, left side pressure pain threshold (PPT) and anxiety. Statistically significant differences were not found for time factor (p > 0.05) and neither in group*time interaction (p > 0.05) for CPM, TS, right side PPT, flexo-extension and lateral-flexion ROM. Conclusions: Kinesiophobia was the only outcome that showed differences between VR and exercise at 3 months. Nevertheless, pain intensity, CPM, TS, ROM, neck disability, pain catastrophizing, fear-avoidance beliefs, PPT and anxiety did not show differences between both interventions.

Dry needling (DN) and percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) are widely used techniques in the treatment of myofascial pain. To investigate the immediate and short-term effects of the combination of DN and PENS compared to DN alone on the upper trapezius muscle. This is a 72-hour follow-up single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Sixty-two volunteer patients with chronic myofascial neck pain with active Myofascial Trigger Points (MTrPs) in the upper trapezius muscle were recruited. Randomization was performed, and 31 patients received DN treatment (DN group) and 31 received DN and PENS (DN+PENS group). The primary outcomes were neck disability index (NDI) and visual analog scale for pain for both post-needling soreness (PNS) and neck pain intensity (NPI). Pressure pain threshold (PPT) and cervical range of motion (CROM) were the secondary outcomes. We detected between-group differences in NPI and PNS in favor of the DN+PENS group immediately after treatment. No between-group differences in NDI were observed. PENS application after dry needling treatment is more effective than dry needling alone for decreasing soreness in the short term and improving neck pain intensity immediately in patients with myofascial chronic neck pain.

The aim of the present study was to explore the pain modulation effects of motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) of specific neck therapeutic exercises both locally, in the cervical region, and remotely. A single-blind, placebo clinical trial was designed. A total of 30 patients with chronic neck pain (CNP) were randomly assigned to an AO group, MI group, or placebo observation (PO) group. Pain pressure thresholds (PPTs) of C2/C3, trapezius muscles, and epicondyle were the main outcome variables. Secondary outcomes included heart rate measurement. Statistically significant differences were observed in PPTs of the cervical region in the AO and MI groups between the preintervention and first postintervention assessment. Significant differences were found in the AO group in the epicondyle between the preintervention, first and second post-intervention assessments. Regarding heart rate response, differences were found in the AO and MI groups between the preintervention and average intervention measurements. AO and MI induce immediate pain modulation in the cervical region and AO also induces remote hypoalgesia. OA appears to lead to greater pain modulation as well as a greater heart rate response, however, both should be clinically considered in patients with CNP.

We present a neurophysiological hypothesis for the role of motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) training in the motor learning process. The effects of movement representation in the brain and those of the cortical–subcortical networks related to planning, executing, adjusting, and automating real movements share a similar neurophysiological activity. Coupled with the influence of certain variables related to the movement representation process, this neurophysiological activity is a key component of the present hypothesis. These variables can be classified into four domains: physical, cognitive–evaluative, motivational–emotional, and direct-modulation. The neurophysiological activity underlying the creation and consolidation of mnemonic representations of motor gestures as a prerequisite to motor learning might differ between AO and MI. Together with variations in cognitive loads, these differences might explain the differing results in motor learning. The mirror neuron system appears to function more efficiently through AO training than MI, and AO is less demanding in terms of cognitive load than MI. AO might be less susceptible to the influence of variables related to movement representation.

Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) combined with a motor control exercises program for the lumbopelvic region. Method: Forty-five asymptomatic individuals were randomized into three groups: MI (n = 15), AO (n = 15) or control group (CG) (n = 15). The outcome measures included lumbopelvic motor control measured with a stabilizer pressure biofeedback, trunk muscle strength using a dynamometer and the perceived fatigue using a visual analogue scale. Participants were assessed at pre-intervention, at first week of intervention (mid) and post-intervention. Results: Regarding lumbopelvic motor control, we observed significant within-group differences between pre- and the mid and post-intervention assessment in AO group (p < .001, d > 0.80). MI and CG groups showed significant differences between pre- and post-intervention assessment (p < .05, d > 0.80). Regarding the direct comparison in the ΔMid-Pre differences between groups, only the AO group was superior to the CG with a large effect size (d > 0.80). Regarding trunk muscle strength, significant within-group differences between pre- and post-intervention assessments were observed in AO (p < .001, d = —1.25) and MI (p < .05, d = —1.00) groups. In relation to the perceived fatigue, statistically significant within-group differences were found in all groups (p < .05, d > 0.60). Conclusion: AO training caused faster changes in lumbopelvic motor control compared with the CG group. The AO strategy could be used as a guideline for teaching lumbopelvic motor control exercises.