Identity-specific predictions and implicit measures of agency.

Abstract

Our sense of agency is thought to arise from the predictive nature of the action system. While previous research supports the role of motor-specific identity prediction in the sense of agency, it remains unclear whether identity-specific predictions (e.g., the pitch of a tone) that are not uniquely associated with specific motor responses also have a significant role. In the present study, we recorded EEG activity during an interval estimation task to assess the impact of these identity-specific predictions on intentional binding, N1 suppression, and the P3b component. Intentional binding was found for all tones that followed self-made actions, regardless of identity-specific predictability of the tone (i.e., the probability of that specific tone following the action). For the N1 component, consequent tones that followed any preceding event, whether it was an action or initial control tone, resulted in N1 suppression; however, this N1 suppression was not significantly influenced by identity-specific predictions. In contrast, the P3b component was significantly influenced by identity-specific predictions, with a significantly larger P3b elicited by more unexpected tones (i.e., prediction-incongruent tones) than expected tones (i.e., prediction-congruent tones). The overall P3b response was also larger for tones following self-made actions. Based on these P3b findings, it appears that higher-cognitive processes are needed to track violations of identity-specific prediction when a single motor command elicits different sensory events. In conclusion, identity-specific predictions that are not associated with specific motor responses have a minimal impact on implicit measures of agency such as intentional binding and N1 suppression.

The influence of action-effect anticipation on bistable perception: differences between onset rivalry and ambiguous motion

“…Specifically, some studies have reported increased sensory attenuation for prediction congruent versus incongruent effects ( Cardoso-Leite et al 2010 ; Desantis et al 2014 ; Hughes et al 2013b ), while other studies did not find (clear) evidence for these effects ( Bednark et al 2015 ; Hsu et al 2013 ; Dogge et al in preparation ). In contrast, intentional binding seems unaffected by identity predictions ( Bednark et al 2015 ; Desantis et al 2012 ; Haering and Kiesel 2014 ). Taken together, direct evidence for the influence of action-based identity predictions on the perception of action-outcomes is scarce.…”

The effect of uncertainty on prediction error in the action perception loop

“…It is often (but not always) based on a sense of agency (or a feeling of authorship) during the movement. Predictability is often investigated in sense and judgement of agency paradigms by manipulating whether or not the identity ( Bednark, Poonian, Palghat, McFadyen, & Cunnington, 2015 ; Engbert & Wohlschlager, 2007 ; Hughes, Desantis, & Waszak, 2013 ; Kuhn et al, 2011 ; Majchrowicz & Wierzchoń, 2018 ), timing ( Hughes et al, 2013 ; Majchrowicz & Wierzchoń, 2018 ) and/or presence ( Moore & Haggard, 2008 ) of a sensory outcome meets some prediction set up by the block-wise probability of each outcome. However, very few studies consider a more continuous distribution of deviations from the expected outcome (e.g., Zalla, Miele, Leboyer, and Metcalfe (2015) ) and, to our knowledge, no previous studies have considered volatility (changes to such a distribution) in an agency paradigm.…”

The Effect of Uncertainty on Prediction Error in the Action-Perception Loop

“…It is often (but not always) based on a sense of agency (or a feeling of authorship) during the movement. Predictability is often investigated in sense and judgement of agency paradigms by manipulating whether or not the identity (Bednark, Poonian, Palghat, McFadyen, & Cunnington, 2015;Engbert & Wohlschlager, 2007;Hughes, Desantis, & Waszak, 2013;Kuhn et al, 2011;Majchrowicz & Wierzchoń, 2018), timing (Hughes et al, 2013;Majchrowicz & Wierzchoń, 2018) and/or presence (Moore & Haggard, 2008) of a sensory outcome meets some prediction set up by the block-wise probability of each outcome.…”