A new look at sensory attenuation: Action-effect anticipation affects sensitivity, not response bias

Psychological Science

Volumn 21, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1740-1745

  Cardoso Leite, Pedro ^a,b   Mamassian, Pascal ^a   Schütz Bosbach, Simone ^b   Waszak, Florian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

sensorimotor contingency; sensory suppression; signal detection theory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; FEMALE; HABITUATION; HUMAN; MALE; ORIENTATION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SENSORY FEEDBACK; VISION;

CUES; FEEDBACK, SENSORY; FEMALE; HABITUATION, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGIC; HUMANS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78650331062     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797610389187     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bays, P.M., & Wolpert, D.M. (2007). Predictive attenuation in the perception of touch. In P. Haggard, Y. Rossetti, & M. Kawato (Eds.), Sensorimotor foundations of higher cognition, attention and performance (pp. 339-358). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
2. Blakemore, S.J., Wolpert, D.M., & Frith, C.D. (2000) Why can't you tickle yourself? NeuroReport, 11, 11-15.
3. Cullen, K.E. (2004). Sensory signals during active versus passive movement. Current Opinions in Neurobiology, 14, 698-706.
4. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229-240.
5. Gorea, A., & Sagi, D. (2000). Failure to handle more than one internal representation in visual detection tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 97, 12380-12384.
6. Green, D.M., & Swets, J.A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.
7. Greenwald, A.G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73-99.
8. Haggard, P., & Whitford, B. (2004). Supplementary motor area provides an efferent signal for sensory suppression. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 52-58.
9. Harless, E. (1861). Der Apparat des Willens. In I.H. Fichte, H. Ulrici, & I.U. Wirth (Eds.), Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik (Vol. 38, pp. 50-73). Halle, Germany: Pfeffer.
10. Herwig, A., Prinz, W., & Waszak, F. (2007). Two modes of sensorimotor integration in intention-based and stimulus-based actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1540-1554.
11. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 845-878.
12. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Linser, K., & Goschke, T. (2007). Unconscious modulation of the conscious experience of voluntary control. Cognition, 104, 459-475.
14. Lotze, R.H. (1852). Medizinische Psychologie oder Physiologie der Seele. Leipzig, Germany: Weidmann'sche Buchhandlung.
15. Pelah, A., & Barlow, H.B. (1996). Visual illusion from running. Nature, 381, 283.
16. Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action (pp. 167-201). New York, NY: Springer.
17. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129-154.
18. Richters, D.P., & Eskew, R.T., Jr. (2009). Quantifying the effect of natural and arbitrary sensorimotor contingencies on chromatic judgments. Journal of Vision, 9(4), Article 27. Retrieved October 5, 2010, from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/9/4/27.full.
19. Sato, A. (2008). Action observation modulates auditory perception of the consequence of others' actions. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 1219-1227.
20. Sperry, R.W. (1950). Neural basis of the spontaneous optokinetic response produced by visual inversion. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 32, 482-489.
21. Tanner, W.P., Swets, J.A., & Green, D.M. (1956). Some general properties of the hearing mechanism. Retrieved fromhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/7897/.
22. Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2003). Awareness of somatic events associated with a voluntary action. Experimental Brain Research, 149, 439-446.
23. von Holst, E., & Mittelstaedt, H. (1950). Das Reafferenzprinzip. Naturwissenschaften, 37, 464-476.
24. Waszak, F., & Gorea, A. (2004). A new look on the relation between perceptual and motor responses. Visual Cognition, 11, 947-963.
25. Waszak, F., & Herwig, A. (2007). Effect anticipation modulates deviance processing in the brain. Brain Research, 1183, 74-82.
26. Wexler, M., Panerai, F., Lamouret, I., & Droulez, J. (2001). Self-motion and the perception of stationary objects. Nature, 409, 85-88.
27. Wolpert, D.M. (1997). Computational approaches to motor control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 209-216.
28. Wolpert, D.M., & Ghahramani, Z. (2000). Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 1212-1217.