Cited by 79Free Will and AgencyMotor Control and AdaptationNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Neural correlates of sense of agency in motor control: a neuroimaging meta-analysis

Open access
Zito, Giuseppe A., Wiest, Roland, Aybek, Selma·2020·PLOS ONE

Abstract

The sense of agency (SoA) refers to the perception that an action is the consequence of one's own intention. Studies exploring the SoA with neuroimaging techniques summarized the available data and confirmed a role of fronto-parietal areas and subcortical structures. However, these studies focused on specific regions of interest. We thus conducted a whole-brain meta-analysis to verify which regions emerge as significant for the SoA, specifically during motor execution. We performed a systematic search on PubMed, PsycINFO and Cochrane databases with the following inclusion criteria: studies investigating SoA with a visuo-motor task by means of neuroimaging in healthy subjects. We performed a quantitative, whole-brain, meta-analysis of neural correlates of the SoA based on the activation likelihood estimation. Of the 785 articles identified by our search, 22 studies met our inclusion criteria (169 foci, 295 subjects for decreased agency, and 58 foci, 165 subjects for normal agency). Neural correlates of decreased agency were the bilateral temporo-parietal junction (MNI: 50,-54,14; -44,-52,42; -48,-56,8). Normal agency showed no significant clusters of activation. This meta-analysis confirmed the key role of areas responsible for decreased SoA during motor control, whereas normal agency did not show a specific neural signature. This study sets the ground for future regions-of-interest analyses of neural correlates of SoA, as well as potential neuromodulation studies, which might be relevant in medical conditions presenting with abnormal SoA.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0234321

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Different measures of the sense of agency-explicit judgment of agency, non-agency, and intentional binding-have been associated with different brain regions.

    “As stressed in the previous paragraph, the different measures of the sense of agency (explicit judgment of the agency, “non-agency” and intentional binding) have been associated with different brain regions, that have been recently reviewed in meta-analyzes (Sperduti et al., 2011; Seghezzi et al., 2019; Zito et al., 2020).”

    From The Forward Model: A Unifying Theory for the Role of the Cerebellum in Motor Control and Sense of Agency (2021) · cites this paper as Zito et al., 2020

    The Discussion (‘Other brain areas involved in the SoA’; page unavailable) associates explicit judgments of agency with frontal regions, while the Results (‘Summary of results of the meta-analysis’; page unavailable) identifies temporal and parietal regions for negative agency. The paper does not establish a brain-region association for intentional binding, and its limitations state that explicit-judgment studies were excluded from the meta-analysis. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The network activated when agency is disrupted consistently involves the temporo-parietal junction or inferior parietal lobule, the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, the precuneus, the pre-supplementary motor area, the superior and middle temporal gyrus, and the angular gyrus.

    “The network that is activated when the agency is disrupted consistently involves the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) or inferior parietal lobule (IPL), the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, the precuneus, the pre-supplementary motor area (preSMA), the superior and middle temporal gyrus, the angular gyrus (Sperduti et al., 2011; Seghezzi et al., 2019; Zito et al., 2020).”

    From The Forward Model: A Unifying Theory for the Role of the Cerebellum in Motor Control and Sense of Agency (2021) · cites this paper as Zito et al., 2020

    The Results (Summary of results of the meta-analysis; page unavailable) identify negative-agency activation clusters in the superior and middle temporal gyri and inferior parietal lobule, with a small portion of one cluster in the angular gyrus. The Conclusions place the network’s main nodes in the bilateral TPJ. The paper does not identify the precuneus or dorsomedial prefrontal cortex as nodes in that network, and the Discussion (Other brain areas involved in the SoA) says its analysis did not reveal SMA activity; thus it does not support the full list as consistently activated. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The judgment of agency has been linked with activation in the anterior prefrontal cortex, the orbitofrontal cortex, and the fronto-median cortex.

    “The judgment of agency has been linked with activation in the anterior prefrontal cortex, the orbitofrontal cortex, the fronto-median cortex (Spengler et al., 2009; Miele et al., 2011; Zito et al., 2020), indicating that this process requires high-order, conceptual mechanisms.”
  • The SMA is recruited to predict the sensory consequences of an action to process agency error during its execution.

    “and it is recruited to predict the sensory consequences of an action such as to process agency error during its execution (Zito et al., 2020)”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zito, G. A., Wiest, R., & Aybek, S.
Affiliations
University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Zito, Giuseppe A.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2020-06-05
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
e0234321
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3033739755
Cited by
79
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (PP00P3_176985)
  • Fondation Leenaards (3642)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
sense of agency, motor control, visuomotor task, temporoparietal junction, subcortical structures, neural correlates, activation likelihood estimation
MeSH terms
Self-Control, Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Psychomotor Performance, Self Concept, Intention, Neuroimaging, Sensorimotor Cortex

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