Abstract
In this paper, we propose an experimental technique for studying the sense of agency (SoA) in joint human–machine actions. This technique is based on the use of an electromechanical finger-lifting device that enables a joint motor action initiated by a participant and completed by the machine. The joint action, later referred to as an “active–passive” action, was implemented as a reaction time task and contrasted with other levels of participant’s involvement, including active movement, passive movement, and observation of a dummy’s movement. In each trial, a feedback sound signal informed the participant whether they had performed the task successfully, i.e. faster than a threshold, which was individually adjusted in the beginning of the experiment. In the active condition, the result depended on the participant, while in other conditions it was preprogrammed for the servo. In context of this task, we studied direct time estimates made by participants and auditory event-related potentials (ERP) in 20 healthy volunteers. The amplitude of the auditory N1 component in the responses to the feedback sound showed no significant effect of activity and success factors, while its latency was shorter in successful trials. Interaction of activity and success factors was significant for subjective time estimates. Surprisingly, the intentional binding effect (subjective compression of time intervals, which is known as a correlate of SoA) only emerged in trials of active condition with negative results. This observation was in contrast with the fact that the active and active–passive movements were both voluntarily initiated by the participant. We believe that studying SoA with the proposed technique may not only add to the understanding of agency but also provide practically relevant results for the development of human–machine systems such as exoskeletons.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We also examined the P3 component related to the end of an action (the holder touching the upper contact plate). It appeared, however, that it overlapped with an eye movement artifact and was highly instable, especially in F conditions. Thus, this analysis was abandoned.
References
Bäß P, Jacobsen T, Schröger 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 70:137–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.06.005
Bayne T, Levy N (2006) The feeling of doing: deconstructing the phenomenology of agency. In: Disorders of volition, pp 49–68
Cincotti F, Pichiorri F, Arico P et al (2012) EEG-based brain-computer interface to support post-stroke motor rehabilitation of the upper limb. In: Proceedings of the annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBS, pp 4112–4115
Cravo AM, Claessens PME, Baldo MVC (2011) The relation between action, predictability and temporal contiguity in temporal binding. Acta Psychol (Amst) 136:157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.11.005
Delorme A, Makeig S (2004) EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 134:9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009
Desantis A, Roussel C, Waszak F (2011) On the influence of causal beliefs on the feeling of agency. Conscious Cogn 20:1211–1220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.02.012
Desantis A, Hughes G, Waszak F (2012) Intentional binding is driven by the mere presence of an action and not by motor prediction. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029557
Dewey JA, Knoblich G (2014) Do implicit and explicit measures of the sense of agency measure the same thing? PLoS ONE 9:e110118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110118
Dubynin IA, Shishkin SL (2017) Feeling of agency versus judgment of agency in passive movements with various delays from the stimulus. Psychol Russ State Art 10:40–56. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2017.0303
Engbert K, Wohlschläger A, Haggard P (2008) Who is causing what? The sense of agency is relational and efferent-triggered. Cognition 107:693–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.021
Gallagher S (2000) Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science. Trends Cogn Sci 4:14–21
Georgieff N, Jeannerod M (1998) Beyond consciousness of external reality: a “Who” system for consciousness of action and self-consciousness. Conscious Cogn 7:465–477. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1998.0367
Graham KT, Martin-Iverson MT, Waters FAV (2015) Intentional binding or perceptual repulsion? Binding in a general population sample decreases with age and increases with psychosis-like experiences. Psychol Conscious Theory Res Pract 2:269–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000067
Haering C, Kiesel A (2014) Intentional binding is independent of the validity of the action effect’s identity. Acta Psychol (Amst) 152:109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.07.015
Haggard P, Clark S (2003) Intentional action: conscious experience and neural prediction. Conscious Cogn 12:695–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00052-7
Haggard P, Clark S, Kalogeras J (2002) Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nat Neurosci 5:382–385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn827
He Y, Eguren D, Azorín JM et al (2018) Brain-machine interfaces for controlling lower-limb powered robotic systems. J Neural Eng 15:2. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aaa8c0
Jo HG, Wittmann M, Hinterberger T, Schmidt S (2014) The readiness potential reflects intentional binding. Front Hum Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00421
Kühn S, Nenchev I, Haggard P et al (2011) Whodunnit? Electrophysiological correlates of agency judgements. PLoS ONE 6:e28657. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028657
Kumar D, Srinivasan N (2017) Multi-scale control influences sense of agency: investigating intentional binding using event-control approach. Conscious Cogn 49:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.12.014
Lange K (2011) The reduced N1 to self-generated tones: an effect of temporal predictability? Psychophysiology 48:1088–1095. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01174.x
Lebedev MA, Nicolelis MAL (2017) Brain-machine interfaces: from basic science to neuroprostheses and neurorehabilitation. Physiol Rev 97:767–837. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00027.2016
Libet B, Wright EW, Gleason CA (1983) Preparation- or intention-to-act, in relation to pre-event potentials recorded at the vertex. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 56:367–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(83)90262-6
Mima T, Terada K, Maekawa M et al (1996) Somatosensory evoked potentials following proprioceptive stimulation of finger in man. Exp Brain Res 111:233–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00227300
Moore JW, Wegner DM, Haggard P (2009) Modulating the sense of agency with external cues. Conscious Cogn 18:1056–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.05.004
Moore JW, Schneider SA, Schwingenschuh P et al (2010) Dopaminergic medication boosts action-effect binding in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia 48:1125–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.12.014
Obhi SS, Hall P (2011) Sense of agency in joint action: influence of human and computer co-actors. Exp Brain Res 211:663–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2662-7
Sahaï A, Desantis A, Grynszpan O et al (2019) Action co-representation and the sense of agency during a joint Simon task: comparing human and machine co-agents. Conscious Cogn 67:44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.11.008
Shahid S, Sinha RK, Prasad G (2010) Mu and beta rhythm modulations in motor imagery related post-stroke EEG: a study under BCI framework for post-stroke rehabilitation. BMC Neurosci 11:P127. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-11-s1-p127
Sidarus N, Vuorre M, Haggard P (2017) How action selection influences the sense of agency: an ERP study. Neuroimage 150:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.015
Suzuki K, Lush P, Seth AK, Roseboom W (2019) Intentional binding without intentional action. Psychol Sci 30:842–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619842191
Synofzik M, Vosgerau G, Newen A (2008) Beyond the comparator model: a multifactorial two-step account of agency. Conscious Cogn 17:219–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.03.010
Tsakiris M, Prabhu G, Haggard P (2006) Having a body versus moving your body: how agency structures body-ownership. Conscious Cogn 15:423–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.09.004
Tsakiris M, Schütz-Bosbach S, Gallagher S (2007) On agency and body-ownership: phenomenological and neurocognitive reflections. Conscious Cogn 16:645–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.05.012
Wen W, Yamashita A, Asama H (2015) The influence of action-outcome delay and arousal on sense of agency and the intentional binding effect. Conscious Cogn 36:87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.06.004
Woldorff MG, Gallen CC, Hampson SA, Hillyard SA, Pantev C, Sobel D, Bloom FE (1993) Modulation of early sensory processing in human auditory cortex during auditory selective attention. Proc Nat Acad Sci 90(18):8722–8726
Woodfield A, Searle J (1986) Intentionality—an essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Yoshie M, Haggard P (2013) Negative emotional outcomes attenuate sense of agency over voluntary actions. Curr Biol 23:2028–2032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.034
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Grant 18-19-00593 from the Russian Science Foundation (the development of the experimental paradigm) and by the grant from the NRC “Kurchatov Institute”, order No. 1057 from 02.07.2020 (the experimental device, conducting experiments and analyzing the data).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Winston D Byblow.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dubynin, I.A., Yashin, A.S., Velichkovsky, B.M. et al. An experimental paradigm for studying sense of agency in joint human–machine motor actions. Exp Brain Res 239, 1951–1961 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-021-06105-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-021-06105-9