Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 160

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The sense of agency in perception, behaviour and human-machine interactions

Wen, Wen, Imamizu, Hiroshi·2022·Nature Reviews Psychology
DOI 10.1038/s44159-022-00030-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s44159-022-00030-6

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 158

  1. Georgieff, N. & Jeannerod, M. Beyond consciousness of external reality: a “who” system for consciousness of action and self-consciousness. Conscious. Cogn. 7, 465–477 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Jeannerod, M. The 25th Bartlett Lecture. To act or not to act: perspectives on the representation of actions. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 52, https://doi.org/10.1080/713755803 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Salomon, R., Lim, M., Kannape, O., Llobera, J. & Blanke, O. ‘Self pop-out’: agency enhances self-recognition in visual search. Exp. Brain Res. 228, 173–181 (2013). · DOI
  4. Kumar, N., Manjaly, J. A. & Sunny, M. M. The relationship between action–effect monitoring and attention capture. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144, 18–23 (2015). · DOI
  5. Wen, W. & Haggard, P. Control changes the way we look at the world. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 30, 603–619 (2018). · DOI
  6. Gozli, D. G., Aslam, H. & Pratt, J. Visuospatial cueing by self-caused features: orienting of attention and action–outcome associative learning. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 459–467 (2016). · DOI
  7. Blakemore, S.-J., Wolpert, D. M. & Frith, C. D. Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nat. Neurosci. 1, 635–640 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Rovee, C. K. & Rovee, D. T. Conjugate reinforcement of infant exploratory behavior. J. Exp. Child. Psychol. 8, 33–39 (1969). · DOI · Paper page
  9. Siqueland, E. R. & DeLucia, C. A. Visual reinforcement of nonnutritive sucking in human infants. Science 165, 1144–1146 (1969). · DOI
  10. Rochat, P. & Striano, T. Perceived self in infancy. Infant. Behav. Dev. 23, 513–530 (2000). · DOI
  11. Cioffi, M. C., Cocchini, G., Banissy, M. J. & Moore, J. W. Ageing and agency: age-related changes in susceptibility to illusory experiences of control. R. Soc. Open. Sci. 4, 0–8 (2017). · DOI
  12. Metcalfe, J., Eich, T. S. & Castel, A. D. Metacognition of agency across the lifespan. Cognition 116, 267–282 (2010). · DOI
  13. Nobusako, S. et al. The time window for sense of agency in school-age children is different from that in young adults. Cogn. Dev. 54, 100891 (2020). · DOI
  14. Parnas, J. & Handest, P. Phenomenology of anomalous self-experience in early schizophrenia. Compr. Psychiat. 44, 121–134 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Nelson, B., Yung, A. R., Bechdolf, A. & McGorry, P. D. The phenomenological critique and self-disturbance: implications for ultra-high risk (‘prodrome’) research. Schizophr. Bull. 34, 381–392 (2008). · DOI
  16. Schultze-Lutter, F. Subjective symptoms of schizophrenia in research and the clinic: the basic symptom concept. Schizophr. Bull. 35, 5–8 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Sterzer, P., Voss, M., Schlagenhauf, F. & Heinz, A. Decision-making in schizophrenia: a predictive-coding perspective. Neuroimage 190, 133–143 (2018). · DOI
  18. Knoblich, G., Stottmeister, F. & Kircher, T. Self-monitoring in patients with schizophrenia. Psychol. Med. 34, 1561–1569 (2004). · DOI
  19. Asai, T. Self is ‘other’, other is ‘self’: poor self-other discriminability explains schizotypal twisted agency judgment. Psychiat. Res. 246, 593–600 (2016). · DOI
  20. Garbarini, F. et al. Abnormal sense of agency in patients with schizophrenia: evidence from bimanual coupling paradigm. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 10, 43 (2016). · DOI
  21. Green, D. & Swets, J. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (Wiley, 1966).
  22. Haggard, P., Clark, S. & Kalogeras, J. Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 382–385 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  23. Moore, J. W. & Obhi, S. S. Intentional binding and the sense of agency: a review. Conscious. Cogn. 21, 546–561 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  24. Ricciardi, L. et al. Acting without being in control: exploring volition in Parkinson’s disease with impulsive compulsive behaviours. Park. Relat. Disord. 40, 51–57 (2017). · DOI
  25. Moore, J. W. et al. Ketamine administration in healthy volunteers reproduces aberrant agency experiences associated with schizophrenia. Cogn. Neuropsychiat. 16, 364–381 (2011). · DOI
  26. Saito, N. et al. Altered awareness of action in Parkinson’s disease: evaluations by explicit and implicit measures. Sci. Rep. 7, 8019 (2017). · DOI
  27. Saito, N., Takahata, K., Murai, T. & Takahashi, H. Discrepancy between explicit judgement of agency and implicit feeling of agency: implications for sense of agency and its disorders. Conscious. Cogn. 37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.07.011 (2015). · DOI
  28. Majchrowicz, B. & Wierzchoń, M. Unexpected action outcomes produce enhanced temporal binding but diminished judgement of agency. Conscious. Cogn. 65, 310–324 (2018). · DOI
  29. Ebert, J. P. & Wegner, D. M. Time warp: authorship shapes the perceived timing of actions and events. Conscious. Cogn. 19, 481–489 (2010). · DOI
  30. Wen, W., Yamashita, A. & Asama, H. The influence of action-outcome delay and arousal on sense of agency and the intentional binding effect. Conscious. Cogn. 36, 87–95 (2015). · DOI
  31. Buehner, M. J. Understanding the past, predicting the future: causation, not intentional action, is the root of temporal binding. Psychol. Sci. 23, 1490–1497 (2012). · DOI
  32. Kirsch, W., Kunde, W. & Herbort, O. Intentional binding is unrelated to action intention. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 45, 378–385 (2019). · DOI
  33. Wohlschläger, A., Haggard, P., Gesierich, B. & Prinz, W. The perceived onset time of self- and other-generated actions. Psychol. Sci. 14, 586–591 (2003). · DOI
  34. Suzuki, K., Lush, P., Seth, A. K. & Roseboom, W. Intentional binding without intentional action. Psychol. Sci. 30, 842–853 (2019). · DOI
  35. Jo, H.-G., Wittmann, M., Hinterberger, T. & Schmidt, S. The readiness potential reflects intentional binding. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 421 (2014). · DOI
  36. Goldberg, M., Busch, N. & van der Meer, E. The amount of recent action-outcome coupling modulates the mechanisms of the intentional binding effect: a behavioral and ERP study. Conscious. Cogn. 56, 135–149 (2017). · DOI
  37. Buehner, M. J. & Humphreys, G. R. Causal binding of actions to their effects. Psychol. Sci. 20, 1221–1228 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  38. Cravo, A. M., Claessens, P. M. E. & Baldo, M. V. C. Voluntary action and causality in temporal binding. Exp. Brain Res. 199, 95–99 (2009). · DOI
  39. Haggard, P. & Cole, J. Intention, attention and the temporal experience of action. Conscious. Cogn. 16, 211–220 (2007). · DOI
  40. Block, R. A. & Zakay, D. Prospective and retrospective duration judgments: a meta-analytic review. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 4, 184–197 (1997). · DOI · Paper page
  41. New, J. J. & Scholl, B. J. Subjective time dilation: spatially local, object-based, or a global visual experience? J. Vis. 9, https://doi.org/10.1167/9.2.4 (2009). · doi:10.1167/9.2.4
  42. Haggard, P. Sense of agency in the human brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 18, 197–208 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  43. Claxton, G. Why can’t we tickle ourselves? Percept. Mot. Skills 41, 335–338 (1975). · DOI
  44. Blakemore, S.-J., Frith, C. D. & Wolpert, D. M. Spatio-temporal prediction modulates the perception of self-produced stimuli. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 11, 551–559 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
  45. Wen, W. Does delay in feedback diminish sense of agency? A review. Conscious. Cogn. 73, 102759 (2019). · DOI
  46. Bays, P. M. & Wolpert, D. M. Computational principles of sensorimotor control that minimize uncertainty and variability. J. Physiol. 578, 387–396 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  47. Lindner, A., Thier, P., Kircher, T. T. J., Haarmeier, T. & Leube, D. T. Disorders of agency in schizophrenia correlate with an inability to compensate for the sensory consequences of actions. Curr. Biol. 15, 1119–1124 (2005). · DOI
  48. Roussel, C., Hughes, G. & Waszak, F. A preactivation account of sensory attenuation. Neuropsychologia 51, 922–929 (2013). · DOI
  49. Wen, W., Brann, E., Di Costa, S. & Haggard, P. Enhanced perceptual processing of self-generated motion: evidence from steady-state visual evoked potentials. Neuroimage 175, 438–448 (2018). · DOI
  50. Dewey, J. A. & Knoblich, G. Do implicit and explicit measures of the sense of agency measure the same thing? PLoS ONE 9, e110118 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  51. Wolpe, N. & Rowe, J. B. Beyond the ‘urge to move’: objective measures for the study of agency in the post-Libet era. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 450 (2014). · DOI
  52. Bays, P. M., Flanagan, J. R. & Wolpert, D. M. Attenuation of self-generated tactile sensations is predictive, not postdictive. PLoS Biol. 4, 281–284 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  53. Schwarz, K. A., Pfister, R., Kluge, M., Weller, L. & Kunde, W. Do we see it or not? Sensory attenuation in the visual domain. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147, 418–430 (2018). · DOI
  54. Desantis, A., Roussel, C. & Waszak, F. The temporal dynamics of the perceptual consequences of action–effect prediction. Cognition 132, 243–250 (2014). · DOI
  55. Hughes, G. & Waszak, F. ERP correlates of action effect prediction and visual sensory attenuation in voluntary action. Neuroimage 56, 1632–1640 (2011). · DOI
  56. Weiss, C., Herwig, A. & Schütz-Bosbach, S. The self in social interactions: sensory attenuation of auditory action effects is stronger in interactions with others. PLoS ONE 6, 16–18 (2011).
  57. Horváth, J. Action-related auditory ERP attenuation: paradigms and hypotheses. Brain Res. 1626, 54–65 (2015). · DOI
  58. Weiss, C., Herwig, A. & Schütz-Bosbach, S. The self in action effects: selective attenuation of self-generated sounds. Cognition 121, 207–218 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  59. Neszmélyi, B. & Horváth, J. Action-related auditory ERP attenuation is not modulated by action effect relevance. Biol. Psychol. 161, 108029 (2021). · DOI
  60. Brockhaus-dumke, A. et al. Impaired mismatch negativity generation in prodromal subjects and patients with schizophrenia. Schizophr. Res. 73, 297–310 (2005). · DOI
  61. Wen, W. et al. The active sensing of control difference. iScience 23, 101112 (2020). · DOI
  62. Wen, W. et al. Categorical perception of control. eNeuro 7, ENEURO.0258-20.2020 (2020). · DOI
  63. Morgan, S. T., Hansen, J. C. & Hillyard, S. Selective attention to stimulus location modulates the steady-state visual evoked potential. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 4770–4774 (1996). · DOI · Paper page
  64. Wen, W. & Haggard, P. Prediction error and regularity detection underlie two dissociable mechanisms for computing the sense of agency. Cognition 195, 104074 (2020). · DOI
  65. Wang, S., Rajananda, S., Lau, H. & Knotts, J. D. New measures of agency from an adaptive sensorimotor task. PLoS ONE 15, e0244113 (2021). · DOI
  66. Gentsch, A. & Schütz-Bosbach, S. I did it: unconscious expectation of sensory consequences modulates the experience of self-agency and its functional signature. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 3817–3828 (2011). · DOI
  67. Bednark, J. G., Poonian, S. K., Palghat, K., McFadyen, J. & Cunnington, R. Identity-specific predictions and implicit measures of agency. Psychol. Conscious. Theory Res. Pract. 2, 253–268 (2015).
  68. Timm, J., SanMiguel, I., Keil, J., Schröger, E. & Schönwiesner, M. Motor intention determines senseory attenuation of brain responses to self-initiated sounds. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 26, 1481–1489 (2014). · DOI
  69. Kühn, S. et al. Whodunnit? Electrophysiological correlates of agency judgements. PLoS ONE 6, e28657 (2011). · DOI
  70. Gentsch, A., Kathmann, N. & Schütz-Bosbach, S. Reliability of sensory predictions determines the experience of self-agency. Behav. Brain Res. 228, 415–422 (2012). · DOI
  71. Toida, K., Ueno, K. & Shimada, S. Neural basis of the time window for subjective motor–auditory integration. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9, 688 (2016). · DOI
  72. Thelen, E., ScottKelso, J. A. & Fogel, A. Self-organizing systems and infant motor development. Dev. Rev. 7, 39–65 (1987). · DOI · Paper page
  73. Rochat, P. & Striano, T. Emerging self-exploration by 2-month-old infants. Dev. Sci. 2, 206–218 (1999). · DOI
  74. Wang, Q. et al. Infants in control: rapid anticipation of action outcomes in a gaze-contingent paradigm. PLoS ONE 7, 1–6 (2012).
  75. Miyazaki, M., Takahashi, H., Rolf, M., Okada, H. & Omori, T. The image-scratch paradigm: a new paradigm for evaluating infants’ motivated gaze control. Sci. Rep. 4, 1–6 (2014). · DOI
  76. Zaadnoordijk, L., Otworowska, M., Kwisthout, J. & Hunnius, S. Can infants’ sense of agency be found in their behavior? Insights from babybot simulations of the mobile-paradigm. Cognition 181, 58–64 (2018). · DOI
  77. Karsh, N., Eitam, B., Mark, I. & Higgins, E. T. Bootstrapping agency: how control-relevant information affects motivation. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 1333–1350 (2016). · DOI
  78. Tanaka, T., Watanabe, K. & Tanaka, K. Immediate action effects motivate actions based on the stimulus–response relationship. Exp. Brain Res. 239, 67–78 (2021). · DOI
  79. Hemed, E., Bakbani-Elkayam, S., Teodorescu, A. R., Yona, L. & Eitam, B. Evaluation of an action’s effectiveness by the motor system in a dynamic environment. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 935–948 (2020). · DOI
  80. Karsh, N. et al. The differential impact of a response’s effectiveness and its monetary value on response-selection. Sci. Rep. 10, 3405 (2020). · DOI
  81. Penton, T., Wang, X., Pierre, M., Catmur, C. & Bird, G. The influence of action–outcome contingency on motivation from control. Exp. Brain Res. 236, 3239–3249 (2018). · DOI
  82. Di Costa, S., Théro, H., Chambon, V. & Haggard, P. Try and try again: post-error boost of an implicit measure of agency. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 71, 1584–1595 (2018). · DOI
  83. Wen, W. et al. Perception and control: individual difference in the sense of agency is associated with learnability in sensorimotor adaptation. Sci. Rep. 11, 20542 (2021). · DOI
  84. Cohen, J. D., McClure, S. M. & Yu, A. J. Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 362, 933–942 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  85. Pekny, S. E., Izawa, J. & Shadmehr, R. Reward-dependent modulation of movement variability. J. Neurosci. 35, 4015–4024 (2015). · DOI
  86. Dezza, I. C., Yu, A. J., Cleeremans, A. & Alexander, W. Learning the value of information and reward over time when solving exploration-exploitation problems. Sci. Rep. 7, 16919 (2017). · DOI
  87. Laureiro-Martínez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N. & Zollo, M. Understanding the exploration-exploitation dilemma: an fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 36, 319–338 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  88. Mcclure, S. M., Gilzenrat, M. S. & Cohen, J. D. An exploration-exploitation model based on norepinephrine and dopamine activity. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 18, 867–874 (2005).
  89. Wen, W., Yamashita, A. & Asama, H. Measurement of the perception of control during continuous movement using electroencephalography. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11, 392 (2017). · DOI
  90. Vernon, R. Unintended consequences. Polit. Theory 7, 57–73 (1979). · DOI
  91. Caspar, E. A., Christensen, J. F., Cleeremans, A. & Haggard, P. Coercion changes the sense of agency in the human brain. Curr. Biol. 26, 585–592 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  92. Griggs, R. A. Milgram’s obedience study: a contentious classic reinterpreted. Teach. Psychol. 44, 32–37 (2017). · DOI
  93. Caspar, E. A., Ioumpa, K., Keysers, C. & Gazzola, V. Obeying orders reduces vicarious brain activation towards victims’ pain. Neuroimage 222, 117251 (2020). · DOI
  94. Caspar, E. A., Cleeremans, A. & Haggard, P. Only giving orders? An experimental study of the sense of agency when giving or receiving commands. PLoS ONE 13, e0204027 (2018). · DOI
  95. Beyer, F., Sidarus, N., Bonicalzi, S. & Haggard, P. Beyond self-serving bias: diffusion of responsibility reduces sense of agency and outcome monitoring. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 12, 138–145 (2017). · DOI
  96. Sidarus, N., Travers, E., Haggard, P. & Beyer, F. How social contexts affect cognition: mentalizing interferes with sense of agency during voluntary action. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 89, 103994 (2020). · DOI
  97. Maselli, A. & Slater, M. The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 83 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  98. Wen, W. et al. Goal-directed movement enhances body representation updating. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10, 1–10 (2016).
  99. Tsakiris, M., Prabhu, G. & Haggard, P. Having a body versus moving your body: how agency structures body-ownership. Conscious. Cogn. 15, 423–432 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  100. Kalckert, A. & Ehrsson, H. H. Moving a rubber hand that feels like your own: a dissociation of ownership and agency. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6, 40 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  101. Asai, T. Agency elicits body-ownership: proprioceptive drift toward a synchronously acting external proxy. Exp. Brain Res. 234, 1163–1174 (2016). · DOI
  102. Maister, L., Slater, M., Sanchez-Vives, M. V. & Tsakiris, M. Changing bodies changes minds: owning another body affects social cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 6–12 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  103. Peck, T. C., Seinfeld, S., Aglioti, S. M. & Slater, M. Putting yourself in the skin of a black avatar reduces implicit racial bias. Conscious. Cogn. 22, 779–787 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  104. Frith, C. D., Blakemore, S.-J. & Wolpert, D. M. Abnormalities in the awareness and control of action. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 355, 1771–1788 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  105. Blakemore, S.-J., Wolpert, D. M. & Frith, C. D. Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 237–242 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  106. Sato, A. & Yasuda, A. 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, 241–255 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  107. Carruthers, G. The case for the comparator model as an explanation of the sense of agency and its breakdowns. Conscious. Cogn. 21, 30–45 (2012). · DOI
  108. Elsner, B. & Hommel, B. Effect anticipation and action control. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 27, 229–240 (2001). · DOI
  109. Wegner, D. M., Sparrow, B. & Winerman, L. Vicarious agency: experiencing control over the movements of others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86, 838–848 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  110. Wen, W., Yamashita, A. & Asama, H. The sense of agency during continuous action: performance is more important than action–feedback association. PLoS ONE 10, e0125226 (2015). · DOI
  111. Inoue, K., Takeda, Y. & Kimura, M. Sense of agency in continuous action: assistance-induced performance improvement is self-attributed even with knowledge of assistance. Conscious. Cogn. 48, 246–252 (2017). · DOI
  112. Aoyagi, K. et al. Modified sensory feedback enhances the sense of agency during continuous body movements in virtual reality. Sci. Rep. 11, 2553 (2021). · DOI
  113. Metcalfe, J. & Greene, M. J. Metacognition of agency. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 136, 184–199 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  114. Metcalfe, J., Eich, T. S. & Miele, D. B. Metacognition of agency: proximal action and distal outcome. Exp. Brain Res. 229, 485–496 (2013). · DOI
  115. Howard, E. E., Edwards, S. G. & Bayliss, A. P. Physical and mental effort disrupts the implicit sense of agency. Cognition 157, 114–125 (2016). · DOI
  116. Demanet, J., Muhle-Karbe, P. S., Lynn, M. T., Blotenberg, I. & Brass, M. Power to the will: how exerting physical effort boosts the sense of agency. Cognition 129, 574–578 (2013). · DOI
  117. Moore, J. W. & Fletcher, P. C. Sense of agency in health and disease: a review of cue integration approaches. Conscious. Cogn. 21, 59–68 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  118. Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G. & Lindner, A. Me or not me — an optimal integration of agency cues? Conscious. Cogn. 18, 1065–1068 (2009). · DOI
  119. Parvin, D. E., McDougle, S. D., Taylor, J. A. & Ivry, R. B. Credit assignment in a motor decision making task is influenced by agency and not sensorimotor prediction errors. J. Neurosci. 38, 3601–3617 (2018). · DOI
  120. David, N. New frontiers in the neuroscience of the sense of agency. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6, 161 (2012).
  121. Farrer, C. & Frith, C. D. C. D. Experiencing oneself vs another person as being the cause of an action: the neural correlates of the experience of agency. Neuroimage 15, 596–603 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  122. Seghezzi, S., Zirone, E., Paulesu, E. & Zapparoli, L. The brain in (willed) action: a meta-analytical comparison of imaging studies on motor intentionality and sense of agency. Front. Psychol. 10, 804 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  123. Farrer, C. et al. Modulating the experience of agency: a positron emission tomography study. Neuroimage 18, 324–333 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  124. Farrer, C. et al. The angular gyrus computes action awareness representations. Cereb. Cortex 18, 254–261 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  125. Kühn, S., Brass, M. & Haggard, P. Feeling in control: Neural correlates of experience of agency. Cortex 49, 1935–1942 (2013). · DOI
  126. Tsakiris, M., Longo, M. R. & Haggard, P. Having a body versus moving your body: neural signatures of agency and body-ownership. Neuropsychologia 48, 2740–2749 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  127. Spengler, S., von Cramon, D. Y. & Brass, M. Was it me or was it you? How the sense of agency originates from ideomotor learning revealed by fMRI. Neuroimage 46, 290–298 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  128. Ohata, R. et al. Sense of agency beyond sensorimotor process: decoding self–other action attribution in the human brain. Cereb. Cortex 30, 4076–4091 (2020). · DOI
  129. Fukushima, H., Goto, Y., Maeda, T., Kato, M. & Umeda, S. Neural substrates for judgment of self-agency in ambiguous situations. PLoS One 8, e72267 (2013). · DOI
  130. Cavanna, A. E. & Trimble, M. R. The precuneus: a review of its functional anatomy and behavioural correlates. Brain 129, 564–583 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  131. Farrer, C. et al. Neural correlates of action attribution in schizophrenia. Psychiat. Res. Neuroimaging 131, 31–44 (2004). · DOI
  132. Khalighinejad, N. & Haggard, P. Modulating human sense of agency with non-invasive brain stimulation. Cortex 69, 93–103 (2015). · DOI
  133. Schultz, W. Dopamine reward prediction-error signalling: a two-component response. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 17, 183–195 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  134. Wolpert, D. M., Miall, R. C. & Kawato, M. Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2, 338–347 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  135. Shadmehr, R., Smith, M. A. & Krakauer, J. W. Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 33, 89–108 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  136. Imamizu, H. et al. Human cerebellar activity reflecting an acquired internal model of a new tool. Nature 403, 192–195 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  137. Stein, J. Cerebellar forward models to control movement. J. Physiol. 587, 299–299 (2009). · DOI
  138. Blakemore, S.-J., Wolpert, D. M. & Frith, C. D. The cerebellum contributes to somatosensory cortical activity during self-produced tactile stimulation. Neuroimage 10, 448–459 (1999). · DOI
  139. Kilteni, K. & Ehrsson, H. H. Functional connectivity between the cerebellum and somatosensory areas implements the attenuation of self-generated touch. J. Neurosci. 40, 894–906 (2020). · DOI
  140. Koreki, A. et al. Dysconnectivity of the agency network in schizophrenia: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Front. Psychiat. 10, 171 (2019). · DOI
  141. Moore, J. W. et al. Dopaminergic medication boosts action–effect binding in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia 48, 1125–1132 (2010). · DOI
  142. Wen, W., Kuroki, Y. & Asama, H. The sense of agency in driving automation. Front. Psychol. 10, 02691 (2019). · DOI
  143. Garcia, P. et al. Trauma pod: a semi-automated telerobotic surgical system. Int. J. Med. Robot. Comput. Assist. Surg. 5, 136–146 (2009). · DOI
  144. Dagnino, G., Georgilas, I., Tarassoli, P., Atkins, R. & Dogramadzi, S. Vision-based real-time position control of a semi-automated system for robot-assisted joint fracture surgery. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 11, 437–455 (2016). · DOI
  145. Limerick, H., Coyle, D. & Moore, J. W. The experience of agency in human–computer interactions: a review. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 643 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  146. van der Wel, R. P. R. D. Me and we: metacognition and performance evaluation of joint actions. Cognition 140, 49–59 (2015). · DOI
  147. Dewey, J. A., Pacherie, E. & Knoblich, G. The phenomenology of controlling a moving object with another person. Cognition 132, 383–397 (2014). · DOI
  148. van der Wel, R. P. R. D., Sebanz, N. & Knoblich, G. The sense of agency during skill learning in individuals and dyads. Conscious. Cogn. 21, 1267–1279 (2012). · DOI
  149. Yun, S. et al. Investigating the relationship between assisted driver’s SoA and EEG. In Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on NeuroRehabilitation (ICNR2018) Vol. 21 (Springer, 2018).
  150. Tanimoto, T., Shinohara, K. & Yoshinada, H. Research on effective teleoperation of construction machinery fusing manual and automatic operation. Robomech J. 4, 14 (2017). · DOI
  151. Victor, T. W. et al. Automation expectation mismatch: Incorrect prediction despite eyes on threat and hands on wheel. Hum. Factors 60, 1095–1116 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  152. Tuomela, R. Joint intention, we-mode and I-mode. Midwest. Stud. Phil. 30, 35–58 (2006). · DOI
  153. Zander, T. O. & Kothe, C. Towards passive brain–computer interfaces: applying brain–computer interface technology to human–machine systems in general. J. Neural Eng. 8, 025005 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  154. Çığ Karaman, Ç. & Sezgin, T. M. Gaze-based predictive user interfaces: visualizing user intentions in the presence of uncertainty. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 111, 78–91 (2018). · DOI
  155. Shishkin, S. L. et al. EEG negativity in fixations used for gaze-based control: toward converting intentions into actions with an eye–brain–computer interface. Front. Neurosci. 10, 528 (2016). · DOI
  156. Wen, W., Yun, S., Yamashita, A., Northcutt, B. D. & Asama, H. Deceleration assistance mitigated the trade-off between sense of agency and driving performance. Front. Psychol. 12, 643516 (2021). · DOI
  157. Takagi, A., Ganesh, G., Yoshioka, T., Kawato, M. & Burdet, E. Physically interacting individuals estimate the partner’s goal to enhance their movements. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0054 (2017). · DOI
  158. Li, R. et al. Indirect shared control for cooperative driving between driver and automation in steer-by-wire vehicles. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 22, 7826–7836 (2020). · DOI

Cited by

See all 160

Metadata

Authors
Wen, W., & Imamizu, H.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Reviews Psychology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-02-24
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
211-222
ISSN
2731-0574
DOI
10.1038/s44159-022-00030-6
Cited by
160
References
19
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The sense of agency in perception, behaviour and human-machine interactions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s44159-022-00030-6
The paper
Wen, W., & Imamizu, H. (2022). The sense of agency in perception, behaviour and human-machine interactions. Nature Reviews Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00030-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.