Violation of expectations about movement and goal achievement leads to Sense of Agency reduction

Research Article

Abstract

The control of one’s own movements and of their impact on the external world generates a feeling of control referred to as Sense of Agency (SoA). SoA is experienced when actions match predictions and is reduced by unpredicted events. The present study investigated the contribution of monitoring two fundamental components of action—movement execution and goal achievement—that have been most often explored separately in previous research. We have devised a new paradigm in which participants performed goal-directed actions while viewing an avatar’s hand in a mixed-reality scenario. The hand performed either the same action or a different one, simultaneously or after various delays. Movement of the virtual finger and goal attainment were manipulated, so that they could match or conflict with the participants’ expectations. We collected judgments of correspondence (an explicit index of SoA that overcomes the tendency to over-attribute actions to oneself) by asking participants if the observed action was synchronous or not with their action. In keeping with previous studies, we found that monitoring both movement execution and goal attainment is relevant for SoA. Moreover, we expanded previous findings by showing that movement information may be a more constant source of SoA modulation than goal information. Indeed, an incongruent movement impaired SoA irrespective of delay duration, while a missed goal did so only when delays were short. Our novel paradigm allowed us to simultaneously manipulate multiple action features, a characteristic that makes it suitable for investigating the contribution of different sub-components of action in modulating SoA in healthy and clinical populations.

Keywords

Sense of Agency Movement Goal Action monitoring Mixed-reality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by PRIN grant (Progetti di Ricerca di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale, Edit. 2015, Prot. 20159CZFJK) and by European Research Council (ERC) Advanced Grant (eHONESTY) to SMA. We thank Eilidh McCann (eilidhmccann@icloud.com) for proofreading the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

221_2018_5286_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 KB)

References

  1. Blakemore SJ, Frith CD, Wolpert DM (1999) Spatio-temporal prediction modulates the perception of self-produced stimuli. J Cogn Neurosci 11(5):551–559.  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892999563607 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Blakemore SJ, Wolpert DM, Frith CD (2000) Why canʼt you tickle yourself? NeuroReport 11(11):11–16.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200008030-00002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blakemore SJ, Frith CD, Wolpert DM (2001) The cerebellum is involved in predicting the sensory consequences of action. Neuroreport 12(9):1879–1884.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200107030-00023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blakemore SJ, Oakley DA, Frith CD (2003) Delusions of alien control in the normal brain. Neuropsychologia 41(8):1058–1067.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00313-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Caspar EA, Desantis A, Dienes Z, Cleeremans A, Haggard P (2016) The sense of agency as tracking control. PLoS One 11(10):e0163892.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163892 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambon V, Wenke D, Fleming SM, Prinz W, Haggard P (2012) An online neural substrate for sense of agency. Cereb Cortex 23:1031–1037.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs059 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Danielmeier C, Ullsperger M (2011) Post-error adjustments. Front Psychol 2:233.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00233 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Daprati E, Franck N, Georgieff N, Proust J, Pacherie E, Dalery J, Jeannerod M (1997) Looking for the agent: an investigation into consciousness of action and self-consciousness in schizophrenic patients. Cognition 65(1):71–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00039-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. David N, Skoruppa S, Gulberti A, Schultz J, Engel AK (2016) The sense of agency is more sensitive to manipulations of outcome than movement-related feedback irrespective of sensory modality. PLoS One 11(8):e0161156.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161156 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Desantis A, Roussel C, Waszak F (2011) On the influence of causal beliefs on the feeling of agency. Conscious Cogn 20(4):1211–1220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.02.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Desantis A, Waszak F, Moutsopoulou K, Haggard P (2016) How action structures time: about the perceived temporal order of action and predicted outcomes. Cognition 146:100–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.08.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Farrer C, Frey SH, Van Horn JD, Tunik E, Turk D, Inati S, Grafton ST (2008) The angular gyrus computes action awareness representations. Cereb Cortex 18(2):254–261.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm050 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrer C, Valentin G, Hupé JM (2013) The time windows of the sense of agency. Conscious Cogn 22(4):1431–1441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.09.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Field AP, Miles J, Field Z (2012) Discovering statistics using R. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Fourneret P, Jeannerod M (1998) Limited conscious monitoring of motor performance in normal subjects. Neuropsychologia 36(11):1133–1140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00006-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Franck N, Farrer C, Georgieff N, Marie-Cardine M, Daléry J, D’Amato T, Jeannerod M (2001) Defective recognition of one’s own actions in patients with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 158(3):454–459.  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.3.454 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Frith CD (2014) Action, agency and responsibility. Neuropsychologia 55(1):137–142.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.09.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Frith CD, Blakemore SJ, Wolpert DM (2000) Abnormalities in the awareness and control of action. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 355(1404):1771–1788.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2000.0734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallagher S (2000) Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(1):14–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01417-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gallagher S (2012) Multiple aspects in the sense of agency. New Ideas Psychol 30(1):15–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallagher S (2013) Ambiguity in the sense of agency. In: Clark A, Kiverstein J, Vierkant T (eds) Decomposing the will. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 118–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gallagher S, Zahavi D (2007) The phenomenological mind. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Gentsch A, Schütz-Bosbach S, Endrass T, Kathmann N (2012) Dysfunctional forward model mechanisms and aberrant sense of agency in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biol Psychiatry 71(7):652–659.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.12.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Haggard P (2017) Sense of agency in the human brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 18(4):196–207.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.14 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Haggard P, Clark S (2003) Intentional action: conscious experience and neural prediction. Conscious Cogn 12(4):695–707.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00052-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Haggard P, Clark S, Kalogeras J (2002) Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nat Neurosci 5(4):382–385.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn827 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kühn S, Nenchev I, Haggard P, Brass M, Gallinat J, Voss M (2011) Whodunnit? Electrophysiological correlates of agency judgements. PLoS One 6(12):1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028657 Google Scholar
  28. Kumar D, Srinivasan N (2017) Multi-scale control influences sense of agency: investigating intentional binding using event-control approach. Conscious Cogn 49:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.12.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Metcalfe J, Greene MJ (2007) Metacognition of agency. J Exp Psychol Gen 136(2):184–199.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.184 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Metcalfe J, Eich TS, Miele DB (2013) Metacognition of agency: proximal action and distal outcome. Exp Brain Res 229(3):485–496.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3371-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Moore JW, Fletcher PC (2012) Sense of agency in health and disease: a review of cue integration approaches. Conscious Cogn 21(1):59–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.010 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Padrao G, Gonzalez-Franco M, Sanchez-Vives MV, Slater M, Rodriguez-Fornells A (2016) Violating body movement semantics: neural signatures of self-generated and external-generated errors. NeuroImage 124:147–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.08.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Pavone EF, Tieri G, Rizza G, Tidoni E, Grisoni L, Aglioti SM (2016) Embodying others in immersive virtual reality: electro-cortical signatures of monitoring the errors in the actions of an avatar seen from a first-person perspective. J Neurosci 36(2):268–279.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0494-15.2016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rabbitt PM (1966) Errors and error correction in choice-response tasks. J Exp Psychol 71(2):264–272.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022853 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sato A, Yasuda A (2005) Illusion of sense of self-agency: discrepancy between the predicted and actual sensory consequences of actions modulates the sense of self-agency, but not the sense of self-ownership. Cognition 94(3):241–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.04.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Shanks D, Pearson SM, Dickinson A (1989) Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality by human-subjects. Q J Exp Psychol B Comp Physiol Psychol 41(2):139–159.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748908401189 Google Scholar
  37. Shimada S, Qi Y, Hiraki K (2010) Detection of visual feedback delay in active and passive self-body movements. Exp Brain Res 201(2):359–364.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-2028-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sidarus N, Vuorre M, Haggard P (2017a) How action selection influences the sense of agency: an ERP study. NeuroImage 150:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sidarus N, Vuorre M, Haggard P (2017b) Integrating prospective and retrospective cues to the sense of agency: a multi-study investigation. Neurosci Conscious 3(1):1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/nix012 Google Scholar
  40. Spengler S, von Cramon DY, Brass M (2009) Was it me or was it you? How the sense of agency originates from ideomotor learning revealed by fMRI. NeuroImage 46(1):290–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.01.047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Spinelli G, Tieri G, Pavone EF, Aglioti SM (2017) Wronger than wrong: Graded mapping of the errors of an avatar in the performance monitoring system of the onlooker. NeuroImage 167:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Stetson C, Cui X, Montague PR, Eagleman DM (2006) Motor-sensory recalibration leads to an illusory reversal of action and sensation. Neuron 51(5):651–659.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.08.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Tieri G, Tidoni E, Pavone EF, Aglioti SM (2015) Mere observation of body discontinuity affects perceived ownership and vicarious agency over a virtual hand. Exp Brain Res 233(4):1247–1259.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4202-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Timm J, Schönwiesner M, SanMiguel I, Schröger E (2014) Sensation of agency and perception of temporal order. Conscious Cogn 23(1):42–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.11.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Tsakiris M, Haggard P, Franck N, Mainy N, Sirigu A (2005) A specific role for efferent information in self-recognition. Cognition 96(3):215–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Tsakiris M, Longo MR, Haggard P (2010) Having a body versus moving your body: neural signatures of agency and body-ownership. Neuropsychologia 48(9):2740–2749.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.05.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Ullsperger M, Danielmeier C, Jocham G (2014) Neurophysiology of performance monitoring and adaptive behavior. Physiol Rev 94(1):35–79.  https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00041.2012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Den Bos E, Jeannerod M (2002) Sense of body and sense of action both contribute to self-recognition. Cognition 85(2):177–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00100-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Walentowska W, Moors A, Paul K, Pourtois G (2016) Goal relevance influences performance monitoring at the level of the FRN and P3 components. Psychophysiology 53(7):1020–1033.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12651 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Walsh E, Haggard P (2013) Action, prediction, and temporal awareness. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 142(2):220–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.014 Google Scholar
  51. Wegner DM, Wheatley T (1999) Apparent mental causation. Sources of the experience of will. Am Psychol 54(7):480–492.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.480 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Weiss C, Tsakiris M, Haggard P, Schütz-Bosbach S (2014) Agency in the sensorimotor system and its relation to explicit action awareness. Neuropsychologia 52(1):82–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.09.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Wenke D, Fleming SM, Haggard P (2010) Subliminal priming of actions influences sense of control over effects of action. Cognition 115(1):26–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology“Sapienza” University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.IRCCS, Santa Lucia FoundationRomeItaly
  3. 3.Centre for Studies and Research in Cognitive Neuroscience and Department of PsychologyUniversity of BolognaCesenaItaly

Personalised recommendations