Display options
Cite
Synofzik M, Vosgerau G, Voss M. The experience of agency: an interplay between prediction and postdiction. Front Psychol. 2013;4:127doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00127.
Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., & Voss, M. (2013). The experience of agency: an interplay between prediction and postdiction. Frontiers in psychology, 4127. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00127
Synofzik, Matthis, et al. "The experience of agency: an interplay between prediction and postdiction." Frontiers in psychology vol. 4 (2013): 127. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00127
Synofzik M, Vosgerau G, Voss M. The experience of agency: an interplay between prediction and postdiction. Front Psychol. 2013 Mar 15;4:127. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00127. eCollection 2013. PMID: 23508565; PMCID: PMC3597983.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2013 Mar 15;4:127. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00127. eCollection 2013.

The experience of agency: an interplay between prediction and postdiction.

Frontiers in psychology

Matthis Synofzik, Gottfried Vosgerau, Martin Voss

Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurodegenerative Diseases, Hertie-Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen Tübingen, Germany ; German Research Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Tübingen, Germany.

PMID: 23508565 PMCID: PMC3597983 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00127

Abstract

The experience of agency, i.e., the registration that I am the initiator of my actions, is a basic and constant underpinning of our interaction with the world. Whereas several accounts have underlined predictive processes as the central mechanism (e.g., the comparator model by C. Frith), others emphasized postdictive inferences (e.g., post-hoc inference account by D. Wegner). Based on increasing evidence that both predictive and postdictive processes contribute to the experience of agency, we here present a unifying but at the same time parsimonious approach that reconciles these accounts: predictive and postdictive processes are both integrated by the brain according to the principles of optimal cue integration. According to this framework, predictive and postdictive processes each serve as authorship cues that are continuously integrated and weighted depending on their availability and reliability in a given situation. Both sensorimotor and cognitive signals can serve as predictive cues (e.g., internal predictions based on an efferency copy of the motor command or cognitive anticipations based on priming). Similarly, other sensorimotor and cognitive cues can each serve as post-hoc cues (e.g., visual feedback of the action or the affective valence of the action outcome). Integration and weighting of these cues might not only differ between contexts and individuals, but also between different subject and disease groups. For example, schizophrenia patients with delusions of influence seem to rely less on (probably imprecise) predictive motor signals of the action and more on post-hoc action cues like e.g., visual feedback and, possibly, the affective valence of the action outcome. Thus, the framework of optimal cue integration offers a promising approach that directly stimulates a wide range of experimentally testable hypotheses on agency processing in different subject groups.

Keywords: agency; comparator model; control; delusions of influence; efference copy; internal model; optimal cue integration; schizophrenia

References

  1. Conscious Cogn. 2004 Mar;13(1):1-19 - PubMed
  2. Conscious Cogn. 2012 Mar;21(1):501-6 - PubMed
  3. Conscious Cogn. 2012 Mar;21(1):30-45; discussion 55-8 - PubMed
  4. Brain. 2010 Oct;133(10):3104-12 - PubMed
  5. Conscious Cogn. 2008 Mar;17(1):219-39 - PubMed
  6. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e29557 - PubMed
  7. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Apr;8(4):162-9 - PubMed
  8. J Cogn Neurosci. 1999 Sep;11(5):551-9 - PubMed
  9. Conscious Cogn. 2008 Jun;17(2):411-24 - PubMed
  10. Conscious Cogn. 2011 Dec;20(4):1211-20 - PubMed
  11. Psychiatry Res. 2011 Apr 30;186(2-3):170-6 - PubMed
  12. Conscious Cogn. 2009 Dec;18(4):1065-8 - PubMed
  13. Behav Brain Res. 2012 Mar 17;228(2):415-22 - PubMed
  14. Psychol Sci. 2012 Dec;23(12):1490-7 - PubMed
  15. Conscious Cogn. 2012 Mar;21(1):18-29 - PubMed
  16. Science. 2006 Jan 27;311(5760):518-22 - PubMed
  17. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1950 Dec;43(6):482-9 - PubMed
  18. Neuron. 2001 Nov 8;32(3):527-35 - PubMed
  19. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000 Dec 29;355(1404):1771-88 - PubMed
  20. Curr Biol. 2001 Sep 18;11(18):R729-32 - PubMed
  21. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009 Jan;10(1):48-58 - PubMed
  22. Science. 1995 Sep 29;269(5232):1880-2 - PubMed
  23. Cognition. 2007 Sep;104(3):459-75 - PubMed
  24. Nature. 2004 Jan 15;427(6971):244-7 - PubMed
  25. Nature. 2002 Aug 22;418(6900):872-6 - PubMed
  26. Psychol Bull. 2013 Jan;139(1):133-51 - PubMed
  27. Conscious Cogn. 2012 Mar;21(1):59-68 - PubMed
  28. Schizophr Res. 2011 Mar;126(1-3):20-7 - PubMed
  29. Brain. 2010 Jan;133(Pt 1):262-71 - PubMed
  30. Psychol Sci. 2009 Oct;20(10):1221-8 - PubMed
  31. Conscious Cogn. 2009 Dec;18(4):1056-64 - PubMed
  32. Curr Biol. 2005 Jun 21;15(12):1119-24 - PubMed
  33. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Jun 1;6(6):237-242 - PubMed
  34. Conscious Cogn. 2005 Sep;14(3):439-58 - PubMed
  35. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Jun;86(6):838-48 - PubMed
  36. PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28657 - PubMed
  37. Cognition. 2009 Feb;110(2):279-83 - PubMed
  38. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Feb;7(2):65-69 - PubMed
  39. Nature. 2002 Jan 24;415(6870):429-33 - PubMed

Publication Types