## 3 Results
### Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire--2 (VMIQ-2-GR)  
A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effects of the MI intervention on the VMIQ-2-GR after 4 weeks (six sessions) in the two groups (MI and placebo). Statistically significant results were observed for the MI intervention's effect on all three perspectives of the questionnaire: external visual imagery (EVI: F = 13.697, \(p\) = 0.000, \(p\) < 0.05), internal visual imagery (IVI: F = 12.191, \(p\) = 0.000, \(p\) < 0.05), and kinesthetic visual imagery (KVI: F = 6.996, \(p\) = 0.000, \(p\) < 0.05). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups. The changes in VMIQ-2 scores between the two groups were as follows:  
* EVI: The MI intervention group showed a decrease of 7.4 points, compared to a decrease of 5.8 points in the placebo group. * IVI: The MI intervention group showed a decrease of 4.1 points, while the placebo group showed a larger decrease of 6 points. * KVI: The MI intervention group demonstrated a decrease of 6.5 points, compared to a decrease of 2.3 points in the placebo group. The partial eta-squared (\(\eta^{2}\)) values indicated a large effect size for all three perspectives: \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**VO2 max (mL/kg/min)—Post**} \\ \hline
**Groups** & **M \(\pm\) SD (mL/kg/min)** & **Mean Difference (MD)** & **Confidence Interval (CI)** & **Significance** \\
**N= 58** & **Post** & **(mL/kg/min)** & **95\%** & **(Two-Tailed)** \\ \hline First—MI Intervention Group & \(50.41\pm 3.17\) & & & \(t=-6.04\), \\ (n = 29) & & \(-5.81\) & \(-7.74\); \(-3.89\) & S* = 0.000, \\ Second—Placebo Group & \(44.59\pm 4.09\) & & & \(p<0.05\) \\ (n = 29) & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Lactate (mmol/L)—Post**} \\ \hline
**Groups** & **M \(\pm\) SD (mmol/L)** & **Mean Difference (MD)** & **Confidence Interval (CI)** & **Significance** \\
**N= 58** & **Post** & **(mL/kg/min)** & **95\%** & **Sign (Two-Tailed)** \\ \hline First—MI Intervention Group & \(13.73\pm 1.27\) & & & \(t=4.33\), \\ (n = 29) & & \(1.30\) & 0.70–1.91 & S* = 0.000, \\ Second—Placebo Group & \(15.04\pm 1.00\) & & & \(p<0.05\) \\ (n = 29) & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* * S = significant \(p\) < 0.05; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: A \(t\)-test for independent samples showed statistically significant differences in the first MI intervention group in VO2 max and lactate variables. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**VO2 max (mL/kg/min)**} \\ \hline
**Groups** & **M \(\pm\) SD (mL/kg/min)** & **M \(\pm\) SD (mL/kg/min)** & **Mean Difference** & **Confidence Interval (CI)** & **Significance** \\
**N= 58** & **Pre** & **Post** & **(MD) (mL/kg/min)** & **Interval (CI)** & **Significance** \\ \hline First—MI Intervention & \(42.53\pm 4.48\) & \(50.41\pm 3.17\) & & & F = 48,997, \\ Group (n = 29) & & & & & S* = 0.000, \\ \hline Second—Placebo Group & \(43.86\pm 5.24\) & \(44.59\pm 4.09\) & & & \(p<0.05\) \\ (n = 29) & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Lactate (mmol/L)**} \\ \hline
**Groups** & **M \(\pm\) SD (mmol/L)** & **M \(\pm\) SD (mmol/L)** & **M \(\pm\) SD (mmol/L)** & **MD (mmol/L)** & **CI 95\%** & **Sign** \\
**N= 58** & **Pre** & **Post** & **(mmol/L)** & **CI 95\%** & **Sign** \\ \hline First—MI Intervention & \(42.53\pm 4.48\) & \(50.41\pm 3.17\) & & & & F = 48,997, \\ Group (n = 29) & & & & & S* = 0.000, \\ (n = 29) & & & & & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline Second—Placebo Group & \(43.86\pm 5.24\) & \(44.59\pm 4.09\) & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* * S = significant \(p\) < 0.05; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: A one-way ANOVA showed statistically significant results comparing the mean differences in VO2 max (mL/kg/min) and lactate (mmol/L) between the two groups (MI intervention and placebo) before and after 4 weeks. * EVI: \(\eta^{2}=0.56\), observed power = 1 (\(\alpha=0.05\)). * IVI: \(\eta^{2}=0.54\), observed power = 1 (\(\alpha=0.05\)).