... This has been reported in the context of processing of syntactic and lexical information (Friederici, Meyer, & von Cramon, 2000), the acquisition of a multifrequency bimanual task (Puttemans, Wenderoth, & Swinnen, 2005), mental strategy (Peres et al., 2000), sequence learning (Gobel, Parrish, & Reber, 2011), category learning (Milton & Pothos, 2011), learning more generally (Chein & Schneider, 2005) and motor imagery (Guillot, Collet, Nguyen, Malouin, Richards, & Doyon, 2008) (discussed more fully below). Some previous evidence has pointed specifically to a similar relationship between performance and brain activation during imagery tasks, with more restricted or less intense c o r t e x x x x ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 e1 5 activation in higher performing participants, in keeping with the neural efficiency hypothesis (Lamm, Bauer, Vitouch, & Gst€ attner, 1999;Motes et al., 2008;Reichle, Carpenter, & Just, 2000;Vitouch, Bauer, Gittler, Leodolter, & Leodolter, 1997). It is also possible, however, that the differences seen between the two groups reflect a more fundamental difference in strategy rather than a simple unidimensional difference in skill (Belardinelli et al., 2009;Logie et al., 2011): thus, for example, in comparison to high imagers, low imagers may draw on different, non-visual, sources of knowledge when asked to visualise. ...