Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 234, Issue 10, pp 2819–2827 | Cite as

Agency alters perceptual decisions about action-outcomes

Research Article


Humans experience themselves as agents, capable of controlling their actions and the outcomes they generate (i.e., the sense of agency). Inferences of agency are not infallible. Research shows that we often attribute outcomes to our agency even though they are caused by another agent. Moreover, agents report the sensory events they generate to be less intense compared to the events that are generated externally. These effects have been assessed using highly suprathreshold stimuli and subjective measurements. Consequently, it remains unclear whether experiencing oneself as an agent lead to a decision criterion change and/or a sensitivity change. Here, we investigate this issue. Participants were told that their key presses generated an upward dot motion but that on 30 % of the trials the computer would take over and display a downward motion. The upward/downward dot motion was presented at participant’s discrimination threshold. Participants were asked to indicate whether they (upward motion) or the computer (downward motion) generated the motion. This group of participants was compared with a ‘no-agency’ group who performed the same task except that subjects did not execute any actions to generate the dot motion. We observed that the agency group reported seeing more frequently the motion they expected to generate (i.e., upward motion) than the no-agency group. This suggests that agency distorts our experience of (allegedly) caused events by altering perceptual decision processes, so that, in ambiguous contexts, externally generated events are experienced as the outcomes of one’s actions.


Sense of agency Over-attribution Motion coherence Sensitivity Decision criteria 



We thank Ilona Kovacs for constructive discussions while this project was in its conception phase. We are grateful to Vivianne Huet for data collection. F. Waszak was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement 263067. A. Gorea was supported by a grant de l’Agence National de la recherche ANR-12-BSH2-0005-01.


  1. Blakemore SJ, Wolpert DM, Frith CD (1998) Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nat Rev Neurosci 1(7):635–640. doi:10.1038/2870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blakemore SJ, Wolpert DM, Frith CD (2002) Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Trends Cogn Sci 6(6):237–242. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01907-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Buehner MJ (2012) Understanding the past, predicting the future: causation, not intentional action, is the root of temporal binding. Psychol Sci 23(12):1490–1497. doi:10.1177/0956797612444612 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Burr DC, Santoro L (2001) Temporal integration of optic flow, measured by contrast and coherence thresholds. Vis Res 41(15):1891–1899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardoso-Leite P, Mamassian P, Schütz-Bosbach S, Waszak F (2010) A new look at sensory attenuation. Psychol Sci 21(12):1740–1745. doi:10.1177/0956797610389187 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambon V, Haggard P (2012) Sense of control depends on fluency of action selection, not motor performance. Cognition 125(3):441–451. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornelissen P, Richardson A, Mason A, Fowler S, Stein J (1995) Contrast sensitivity and coherent motion detection measured at photopic luminance levels in dyslexics and controls. Vis Res 35(10):1483–1494CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00039-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Desantis A, Roussel C, Waszak F (2011) On the influence of causal beliefs on the feeling of agency. Conscious Cognit 20(4):1211–1220. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2011.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Desantis A, Weiss C, Schütz-Bosbach S, Waszak F (2012) Believing and perceiving: authorship belief modulates sensory attenuation. PLoS ONE 7(5):e37959. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037959 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Desantis A, Roussel C, Waszak F (2014) The temporal dynamics of the perceptual consequences of action-effect prediction. Cognition 132(3):243–250. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewey A, Knoblich G (2014) Do implicit and explicit measures of the sense of agency measure the same thing?. PLoS ONE 9(10):e110118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110118 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrer C, Valentin G, Hupé JM (2013) The time windows of the sense of agency. Conscious Cogn 22(4):1431–1441. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.09.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.3.454 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallagher S (2000) Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science. Trends Cogn Sci 4(1):14–21. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01417-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, WileyGoogle Scholar
  17. Green DM, Luce RD (1971) Detection of auditory signals presented at random times: III. Percept Psychophys 9(3):257–268. doi:10.3758/BF03212645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hautus MJ, Lee A (2006) Estimating sensitivity and bias in a yes/no task. Br J Math Stat Psychol 59(Pt 2):257–273. doi:10.1348/000711005X65753 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes G, Desantis A, Waszak F (2013) Mechanisms of intentional binding and sensory attenuation: the role of temporal prediction, temporal control, identity prediction, and motor prediction. Psychol Bull 139(1):133–151. doi:10.1037/a0028566 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hume D (1920) A treatise of human nature. Dent, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Kesten H (1958) Accelerated stochastic approximation. Ann Math Stat 29(1):41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Longo M, Haggard P (2009) Sense of agency primes manual motor responses. Percept 38(1):69–78. doi:10.1068/p6045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luce RD (1991) Response times: their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Macmillan NA, Creelman CD (2005) Detection theory: a user’s guide. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Nielsen (1963) Volirion: a new experimental approach. Scand J Psychol 4:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pelli DG (1997) The video toolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat V 10(4):437–442. doi:10.1163/156856897X00366 Google Scholar
  27. Posner MI (1980) Orienting of attention. Q J Exp Psychol 32(1):3–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Repp BH, Knoblich G (2007) Toward a psychophysics of agency: detecting gain and loss of control over auditory action effects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33(2):469–482. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.2.469 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Roussel C, Hughes G, Waszak F (2013) A preactivation account of sensory attenuation. Neuropsychologia 51(5):922–929. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.02.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Roussel C, Hughes G, Waszak F (2014) Action prediction modulates both neurophysiological and psychophysical indices of sensory attenuation. Front Hum Neurosci 8:115. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00115 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Sato A (2008) Action observation modulates auditory perception of the consequence of others’ actions. Conscious Cognit 17(4):1219–1227. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2008.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. SanMiguel I, Widmann A, Bendixen A, Trujillo-Barreto N, Schröger E (2013) Hearing silences: human auditory processing relies on preactivation of sound-specific brain activity patterns. J Neurosci 33(20):8633–8639. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5821-12.2013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.04.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. van den Bos E, Jeannerod M (2002) Sense of body and sense of action both contribute to self-recognition. Cognition 85(2):177–187. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00100-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Waszak F, Cardoso-Leite P, Hughes G (2012) Action effect anticipation: neurophysiological basis and functional consequences. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36(2):943–959. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.11.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wegner DM, Sparrow B (2004) Authorship processing. In: Gazzaniga M (ed) The cognitive neurosciences, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, p 1201–1209Google Scholar
  37. Wegner DM, Wheatley T (1999) Apparent mental causation: sources of the experience of will. Am Psychol 54(7):480–492. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.480 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Weiss C, Herwig A, Schütz-Bosbach S (2011) The self in action effects: Selective attenuation of selfgenerated sounds. Cognit 121(2):207–218. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolpert DM (1997) Computational approaches to motor control. Trends Cogn Sci 1(6):209–216. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01070-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire Psychologie de la PerceptionUniversité Paris Descartes and CNRSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations