Agency attribution: event-related potentials and outcome monitoring
- 622 Downloads
Knowledge about the effects of our actions is an underlying feature of voluntary behavior. Given the importance of identifying the outcomes of our actions, it has been proposed that the sensory outcomes of self-made actions are inherently different from those of externally caused outcomes. Thus, the outcomes of self-made actions are likely to be more motivationally significant for an agent. We used event-related potentials to investigate the relationship between the perceived motivational significance of an outcome and the attribution of agency in the presence of others. In our experiment, we assessed agency attribution in the presence of another agent by varying the degree of contiguity between participants’ self-made actions and the sensory outcome. Specifically, we assessed the feedback correct-related positivity (fCRP) and the novelty P3 measures of an outcome’s motivational significance and unexpectedness, respectively. Results revealed that both the fCRP and participants’ agency attributions were significantly influenced by action–outcome contiguity. However, when action–outcome contiguity was ambiguous, novelty P3 amplitude was a reliable indicator of agency attribution. Prior agency attributions were also found to influence attribution in trials with ambiguous and low action–outcome contiguity. Participants’ use of multiple cues to determine agency is consistent with the cue integration theory of agency. In addition to these novel findings, this study supports growing evidence suggesting that reinforcement processes play a significant role in the sense of agency.
KeywordsVoluntary action Sense of agency Novelty P3 fCRP Reinforcement Action–outcome coupling
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Rebecca Scott, Nigel Barett, and Jeremy Anderson for their assistance in setting up EEG equipment and the use of the Physical Education laboratory at the University of Otago. We also thank Simmy Poonian and Michel Bednark Ohmer for editorial comments. J.G.B. was supported by a University of Otago PhD scholarship, and E.A.F was a recipient of research funding from a University of Otago Research Grant and a Marsden grant from the Royal Society of New Zealand, during the preparation of the manuscript.
- Baess P, Jacobsen T, Schroeger E (2008) Suppression of the auditory N1 event-related potential component with unpredictable self-initiated tones: evidence for internal forward models with dynamic stimulation. Int J Psychophysiol 70(2):137–143. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Foti D, Weinberg A, Dien J, Hajcak G (2011) Event related potential activity in the basal ganglia differentiates rewards from nonrewards: temporospatial principal components analysis and source localization of the feedback negativity. Hum Brain Mapp 32(12):2207–2216. doi: 10.1002/hbm.21182 Google Scholar
- Howell DC (2013) Statistical methods for psychology, 8th edn. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
- Kuhn S, Nenchev I, Haggard P, Brass M, Gallinat J, Voss M (2011) Whodunnit? Electrophysiological correlates of agency judgements. PLoS One 6(12). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028657
- Luck SJ (2005) An introduction to the event-related potential technique. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Muhle-Karbe PS, Krebs RM (2012) On the influence of reward on action–effect binding. Front Psychol 3. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00450
- Synofzik M, Vosgerau G, Voss M (2013) The experience of agency: an interplay between prediction and postdiction. Front Psychol 4. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00127
- Wegner DM, Sparrow B (2004) Authorship processing. In: Gazzaniga MS (ed) The new cognitive neurosciences, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar