The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 9 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Effect of Distorted Visual Feedback on the Sense of Agency
Open accessAbstract
It has been hypothesized that an internal model is involved in controlling and recognizing one’s own actions (action attribution). This results from a comparison process between the predicted sensory feedback of the action and its real sensory consequences. The aim of the present study is to distinguish the respective importance of two action parameters (time and direction) on such an attribution judgment. We used a device that allows introduction of discordance between the movements actually performed and the sensory feedback displayed on a computer screen. Participants were asked to judge whether they were viewing (1) their own movements, (2) their own movements modified (spatially or temporally displaced), or (3) those of another agent (i.e, the experimenter). In fact, in all conditions they were only shown their own movements either unaltered or modified by varying amounts in space or time. Movements were only attributed to another agent when therewas a high spatial discordance between participants’ hand movements and sensory feedback. This study is the first to show that the direction of movements is a cardinal feature in action attribution, whereas temporal properties of movements play a less important role.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study used a joystick/virtual-hand setup to test whether spatial or temporal visual feedback distortion affects action attribution. It found that large angular deviations led participants to attribute their own movements to another agent, whereas even long temporal delays almost never did.
Key findings
- In the spatial condition, participants gave more “self” responses for biases between 0° and 15°, more “bias” responses for biases between 20° and 30° (p < 0.05), and more “other” responses for biases between 50° and 60° (p < 0.05); transitions occurred between 15°–20° and 30°–50°.
- In the temporal condition, participants never gave an “other” response; they gave significantly more “self” responses for biases between 0 ms and 50 ms (p < 0.05) and more “bias” responses for biases between 150 ms and 1100 ms (p < 0.05).
- Repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant main effect of response, F(2, 38) = 86.05, p < 0.0001, and significant interactions: response × bias value, F(26, 494) = 165.11, p < 0.0001; response × modality, F(2, 38) = 188.40, p < 0.0001; and three-way interaction, F(26, 494) = 64.63, p < 0.0001.
- Post-hoc tests found significantly more “bias” responses in the temporal modality than in the angular modality (p < 0.0001), and more “other” responses in the angular modality than in the temporal modality (p < 0.0001), with no significant difference for “self” responses between modalities.
Methods
- Twenty participants (mean age 29.8 ± 10.95; average Edinburgh handedness score 79.05 ± 32.04) held a joystick with their right hand and made random movements while viewing a virtual hand via a mirror, with no direct view of their own hand.
- Trials included neutral movements, 13 angular bias values (5°, 10°, 15°, 20°, 30°, 40°, 50°, 60°, 70°, 80°, 90°, 100°, 110°), and 13 temporal bias values (50, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100 ms); each value was repeated 10 times, yielding 270 trials per participant in pseudo-random order.
- Participants verbally judged each trial as “self,” “bias,” or “other”; responses were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA (factors: response, modality, bias value) and pairwise t-tests.
Limitations
- The paper does not state limitations explicitly.
- Evident from the text: participants were told they might see the experimenter’s movements, but in reality they were never shown the experimenter’s movements, so “other” responses reflect misattribution of their own modified movements rather than detection of another agent.
- Evident from the text: the sample was 20 participants, predominantly right-handed, using only right-hand joystick movements, and only angular and temporal distortions were tested, which may limit generalization.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
8 Own interpretation · 8 Own result · 3 Not checked yet · 1 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Movements were only attributed to another agent when there was a high spatial discordance between participants' hand movements and sensory feedback.”
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · plain
“we showed that an important modification of one's own action led participants to attribute this action to another person.”
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · plain
“modifying the apparent direction of the movement actually performed, by introducing an important spatial deviation ( 50 • ), results in the attribution of one's own actions to another person.”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found a significant main effect of response (F (2, 38) = 86.05,p < 0.0001) with participants giving significantly more”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 3.2. Statistical results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, even with extremely long delays (1100 ms), actions were almost never misattributed.”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This ability to refer the origin of an action to oneself (also called”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12]
- Not checked yetcites [4]
- Not checked yetcites [5]
- Not checked yetcites [6]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This results from a comparison process between the predicted sensory feedback of the action and its real sensory consequences.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
“This comparison process has been considered a key mechanism for referring the origin of an action and thus for attributing an action [4].”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An important deviation would thus lead one to attribute one's own movements to another person because the perception of the final goal would no longer correspond to the goal of the intended action.”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 4. Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The recognition of an action as one's own necessitates matching the final goal of the action with our intended action.”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 4. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An important delay between the movement executed and its visualization does not re-sult in the perception of different goals.”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We propose that the difference obtained between angular and temporal modality on a misattribution of one's own actions to another agent may be explained by a differential influence of spatial and temporal information on the perception of the goal of a movement.”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 4. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A modification of the apparent direction of the movement performed leads to the perception of a goal that differs from the one prior to the execution.”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 4. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the temporal condition, participants gave significantly more”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 3.2. Statistical results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the spatial condition, participants gave the three distinct kinds of responses (”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 3.1. Descriptive analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Post-hoc analyses with Scheff é's tests revealed that the participants gave significantly more”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 3.2. Statistical results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the spatial condition, participants gave more”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 3.2. Statistical results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the temporal condition, however, participants never gave an”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 3.1. Descriptive analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“If the perceived sensory changes are correlated with the predicted sensory feedback, they are registered as consequences of one's own action.If not, by contrast, they are registered as originating from an external source [1,2,4,9].”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1]
- Not checked yetcites [2]
- Not checked yetcites [4]
- Not checked yetcites [9]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results indicate that the response given by the participants depends not only on the value of the bias but also on the modality of the perturbation.”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 3.2. Statistical results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results indicate that a first transition in the kind of response given by the participants (”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > 3.2. Statistical results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, in all conditions they were only shown their own movements either unaltered or modified by varying amounts in space or time.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
“In reality, they only saw their own movements with or without a perturbation; the experimenter's movements were never shown to the participants even though they were told the contrary.”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study is the first to show that the direction of movements is a cardinal feature in action attribution, whereas temporal properties of movements play a less important role.”
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · hedged
“The directional information seems thus more important for attributing an action to oneself or to another person than the timing cues.”
§ Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · hedged
The paper relies on this without support.
The influence of the nature or modality of information on action attribution had never been investigated.
“However, the influence of the nature or the modality of the information on our ability to attribute an action has never been investigated.”
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?
In the citing paper
“If these are correlated, it gives rise to agency (Farrer et al. 2008).”
From The Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL): a Theoretical Research-Based Model of Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality (2021) · cites this paper as Farrer et al. 2008
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(2, 38) = 86.05reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“F (2, 38) = 86.05,p < .0001”
- ConsistentF(26, 494) = 165.11reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(26, 494) = 165.11,p < .0001”
- ConsistentF(2, 38) = 188.4reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2, 38) = 188.40,p < .0001”
- ConsistentF(26, 494) = 64.63reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(26, 494) = 64.63,p < .0001”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory
Oldfield, R. C. (1971) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 · Cited by 35,900
An internal model for sensorimotor integration
Wolpert, D. M., Ghahramani, Z., & Jordan, M. I. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7569931 · Cited by 3,553
Computational principles of movement neuroscience
Wolpert, D. M., & Ghahramani, Z. (2000) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/81497 · Cited by 2,122
Abnormalities in the awareness and control of action
Frith, C., Blakemore, S., & Wolpert, D. M. (2000) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2000.0734 · Cited by 1,258
Relations between the central Nervous System and the peripheral organs
Holst, E. V. (1954) · The British Journal of Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/s0950-5601(54)80044-x · Cited by 1,104
Spatio-Temporal Prediction Modulates the Perception of Self-Produced Stimuli
Blakemore, S.-J., Frith, C. D., & Wolpert, D. M. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/089892999563607 · Cited by 829
The cerebellum is involved in predicting the sensory consequences of action
Blakemore, S.-J., Frith, C. D., & Wolpert, D. M. (2001) · Neuroreport · doi:10.1097/00001756-200107030-00023 · Cited by 587
Sato, A., & Yasuda, A. (2004) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.04.003 · Cited by 551
Defective Recognition of One’s Own Actions in Patients With Schizophrenia
Franck, N., Farrer, C., Georgieff, N., Marie-Cardine, M., Daléry, J., d’Amato, T., & Jeannerod, M. (2001) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.3.454 · Cited by 522
Self-citationJeannerod, M. (1999) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/027249899391205 · Cited by 343
Self-citationGeorgieff, N., & Jeannerod, M. (1998) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1006/ccog.1998.0367 · Cited by 333
Self-citationClever hands: Uncontrolled intelligence in facilitated communication.
Wegner, D. M., Fuller, V. A., & Sparrow, B. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.5 · Cited by 99
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2 · Cited by 1,438
Sense of agency in the human brain
Haggard, P. (2017) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2017.14 · Cited by 1,107
Moving a Rubber Hand that Feels Like Your Own: A Dissociation of Ownership and Agency
Kalckert, A., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2012) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00040 · Cited by 742
Kalckert, A., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2014) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.02.003 · Cited by 368
Do Implicit and Explicit Measures of the Sense of Agency Measure the Same Thing?
Dewey, J. A., & Knoblich, G. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110118 · Cited by 291
Metadata
- Authors
- Farrer, C., Bouchereau, M., Jeannerod, M., & Franck, N.
- Affiliations
- Lyon 1 Université (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Farrer, C.
- ORCID
- Farrer, C.
- Venue
- Behavioural Neurology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 53-57
- ISSN
- 0953-4180 (ISSN-L)
- 1875-8584
- PMC
- PMC5452467
- OpenAlex
- W2148307166
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 1.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Behavioural Neurology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Medical Research Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Free Will and Agency
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Keywords
- sense of agency, visual feedback, internal models, action prediction, movement direction, movement timing, motor control
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Awareness, Feedback, Female, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Space Perception, Time Factors, Time Perception, User-Computer Interface, Visual Perception
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
