The perceptual integration of afferent inputs from two antagonistic muscles, or the perceptual integration of afferent input and motor imagery are related to the generation of a kinesthetic sensation. However, it has not been clarified how, or indeed whether, a kinesthetic perception would be generated by motor imagery if tendon vibrations induced afferent inputs from two antagonistic muscles. The purpose of this study was to investigate how a kinesthetic perception would be generated by motor imagery during co-vibration of two antagonistic muscles at the same frequency. Sixteen healthy subjects participated in this experiment. All subjects provided informed consent for participation in this study. Illusory movements such as wrist flexion or extension were evoked by tendon vibration. The left wrist flexor and extensor muscles were vibrated according to 4 patterns such that there was no difference between the two vibration frequencies (flexor vs. extensor: 40 Hz vs. 40 Hz, 60 Hz vs. 60 Hz, 80 Hz vs. 80 Hz, and 100 Hz vs. 100 Hz). The subjects imaged wrist flexion movement (MI-slow, MI-fast) simultaneously with tendon vibration. After each trial, the perceived movement sensations were quantified on the basis of the velocity and direction of the ipsilateral hand-tracking movements. Two-way ANOVA with a simple main effects test was used to test the effect of the “imagery” factor and “frequency” factor on the average velocities (p < 0.05). When the difference in frequency between the wrist flexor and the extensor was 0 Hz, practically none of the subjects perceived such movement. However, during motor imagery, the velocity of the perceived movement was higher than the velocity without motor imagery. There was a significant main effect of motor imagery and vibration frequency (Imagery: F = 11.115, p < 0.0005, Frequency: F = 6.837, p = 0.014). The interaction between the vibration frequency and condition of motor imagery was also significant (F = 3.818, p = 0.040). A post-hoc test revealed that the velocity was significantly increased during 60Hz-MI-fast compared to 60Hz-MI-none, 80Hz-MI-slow and 80Hz-MI-fast compared to 80Hz-MI-none, and 100Hz-MI-slow and 100Hz-MI-fast compared to 100Hz-MI-none. Furthermore, that velocity was significantly increased during 80Hz-MI-fast and 100Hz-MI-fast compared to 40Hz-MI-fast. The result of the current research showed that the imagined movement direction was perceived during motor imagery with co-vibration of two antagonistic muscles, even though the subjects experienced no kinesthetic perception by co-vibration of two antagonistic muscles at the same frequency without imagery. Furthermore, the kinesthetic perception resulting from these integrations of vibration and motor imagery differed with the imagined movement velocity and the vibration frequency.