This study examined whether the dispositional sense of agency modulates ideomotor learning and the implicit acquisition of action-effect sequences. Two experiments using a serial reaction time task were conducted, differing only in the structure of R-E mappings: a compatible, structured mapping (Experiment 1) versus an incompatible, unpredictable mapping (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, participants responded to visual stimuli embedded in a repeating sequence, with each response triggering a tone. Dispositional agency, assessed through the French sense of agency scale, enhanced sequence learning in Experiment 1: participants with higher scores on the sense of positive agency subscale exhibited faster reaction times, greater disruption following sequence change and stronger recovery after reinstatement. This effect was absent in Experiment 2, suggesting that dispositional agency supports learning only when R-E contingencies are coherent. Situational agency, measured at key task points, followed similar patterns but was not significantly modulated by dispositional agency. Post-experimental interviews revealed limited explicit awareness of the sequence structure. These findings suggest that dispositional agency enhances predictive learning under structured conditions, without guaranteeing explicit access to learned regularities. The results underscore the critical role of R-E structure in shaping learning and the subjective experience of control.
AartsH.CustersR.WegnerD. M. (2005). On the inference of personal authorship: Enhancing experienced agency by priming effect information. Consciousness and Cognition, 14(3), 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2004.11.001
BlakemoreS.-J.FrithC. D.WolpertD. M. (2001). The cerebellum is involved in predicting the sensory consequences of action. NeuroReport, 12(9), 1879–1884.
5.
Bu-OmerH. M.GofukuA.SatoK.MiyakoshiM. (2021). Parieto-occipital alpha and low-beta EEG power reflect sense of agency. Brain Sciences, 11(6), 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060743
ChambonV.SidarusN.HaggardP. (2014). From action intentions to action effects: How does the sense of agency come about?Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00320
8.
CharalampakiA.Ninija KarabanovA.Ritterband-RosenbaumA.Bo NielsenJ.Roman SiebnerH.Schram ChristensenM. (2022). Sense of agency as synecdoche: Multiple neurobiological mechanisms may underlie the phenomenon summarized as sense of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 101, 103307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2022.103307
9.
CleeremansA.McclellandJ. L. (1991). Learning the structure of event sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(3), 235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.120.3.235
10.
CloutierJ.Neil MacraeC. (2008). The feeling of choosing: Self-involvement and the cognitive status of things past. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.05.010
11.
DesantisA.RousselC.WaszakF. (2011). On the influence of causal beliefs on the feeling of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(4), 1211–1220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.02.012
12.
DignathD.PfisterR.EderA. B.KieselA.KundeW. (2014). Representing the hyphen in action-effect associations: Automatic acquisition and bidirectional retrieval of action-effect intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 40(6), 1701–1712. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000022
ElsnerB.HommelB. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.229
15.
ErnstM. O.BanksM. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415(6870), 429–433. https://doi.org/10.1038/415429A
16.
FagardJ.EsseilyR.JacqueyL.O’ReganK.SomogyiE. (2018). Fetal origin of sensorimotor behavior. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 12, 23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2018.00023
FristonK.SchwartenbeckP.FitzGeraldT.MoutoussisM.BehrensT.DolanR. J. (2013). The anatomy of choice: Active inference and agency. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 598. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00598
19.
FrithC. D.BlakemoreS. J.WolpertD. M. (2000). Explaining the symptoms of schizophrenia: Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Brain Research Reviews, 31(2–3), 357–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(99)00052-1
GentschA.KathmannN.Schütz-BosbachS. (2012). Reliability of sensory predictions determines the experience of self-agency. Behavioural Brain Research, 228(2), 415–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.12.029
22.
GinsburgC. (2010). The intelligence of moving bodies: A somatic view of life and its consequences. AWAREing Press.
23.
GreenwaldA. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77(2), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028689
HaggardP.TsakirisM. (2009). The experience of agency: Feelings, judgments, and responsibility. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4), 242–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01644.x
27.
HoffmannJ.LenhardA.SebaldA.PfisterR. (2009). Movements or targets: What makes an action in action-effect learning?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(12), 2433–2449. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902922079
28.
HoffmannJ.SebaldA.StöckerC. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in serial reaction time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27(2), 470–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.470
29.
HommelB. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention – Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55(4), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419687
30.
HommelB.ElsnerB. (2009). Acquisition, representation, and control of action. In E. Morsella, J. A. Bargh, & P. M. Gollwitzer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of human action (pp. 368–397) Oxford University Press.
31.
HommelB.MüsselerJ.AscherslebenG.PrinzW. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–878. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103
HughesG.DesantisA.WaszakF. (2013). Mechanisms of intentional binding and sensory attenuation: The role of temporal prediction, temporal control, identity prediction, and motor prediction. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0028566
34.
HuraultJ. C.BrocG.CrôneL.TedescoA.BrunelL. (2020). Measuring the sense of agency: A French adaptation and validation of the sense of agency scale (F-SoAS). Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 584145. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584145
35.
JanczykM.HeinemannA.PfisterR. (2012). Instant attraction: Immediate action-effect bindings occur for both, stimulus- and goal-driven actions. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 446. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00446
36.
KangS. Y.ImC. H.ShimM.NahabF. B.ParkJ.KimD. W.KakarekaJ.MilettaN.HallettM. (2015). Brain networks responsible for sense of agency: An EEG study. PLoS One, 10(8), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135261
37.
KördingK. P.WolpertD. M. (2004). Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning. Nature, 427(6971), 244–247. https://doi.org/10.1038/NATURE02169
38.
KundeW. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387
39.
LachmanM. E.WeaverS. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.763
LegrandD. (2007). Pre-reflective self-as-subject from experiential and empirical perspectives. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(3), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.04.002
42.
LewickiP.CzyzewskaM.HoffmanH. (1987). Unconscious acquisition of complex procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(4), 523–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.4.523
43.
LindnerA.ThierP.KircherT. T. J.HaarmeierT.LeubeD. T. (2005). Disorders of agency in schizophrenia correlate with an inability to compensate for the sensory consequences of actions. Current Biology, 15(12), 1119–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.05.049
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 314–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7
46.
MoellerB.PfisterR.KundeW.FringsC. (2016). A common mechanism behind distractor-response and response-effect binding?Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 78, 1074–1086. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1063-1
47.
MoellerB.PfisterR.KundeW.FringsC. (2019). Selective binding of stimulus, response, and effect features. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 26(5), 1627–1632. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01646-1
48.
MooreJ. W.MiddletonD.HaggardP.FletcherP. C. (2012). Exploring implicit and explicit aspects of sense of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(4), 1748–1753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.10.005
49.
MooreJ. W.WegnerD. M.HaggardP. (2009). Modulating the sense of agency with external cues. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(4), 1056–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.05.004
NattkemperD.PrinzW. (1997). Stimulus and response anticipation in a serial reaction task. Psychological Research, 60(1–2), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419683
52.
NissenM. J.BullemerP. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90002-8
53.
NosofskyR. M.PalmeriT. J.McKinleyS. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.53
Parks-LeducL.FeldmanG.BardiA. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538548
57.
PaulhusD. L.CareyJ. M. (2011). The FAD-plus: Measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(1), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528483
58.
PfisterR.KundeW. (2013). Dissecting the response in response-effect compatibility. Experimental Brain Research, 224, 647–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3343-x
PiagetJ. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. Internsational University.
61.
PolitoV.BarnierA. J.WoodyE. Z.ConnorsM. H. (2014). Measuring agency change across the domain of hypnosis. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000010
62.
RotterJ. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/H0092976
63.
SatoA.YasudaA. (2005). Illusion of sense of self-agency: Discrepancy between the predicted and actual sensory consequences of actions modulates the sense of self-agency, but not the sense of self-ownership. Cognition, 94(3), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.04.003
SeghezziS.ConvertinoL.ZapparoliL. (2021). Sense of agency disturbances in movement disorders: A comprehensive review. Consciousness and Cognition, 96(October), 103228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2021.103228
66.
ShinY. K.ProctorR. W.CapaldiE. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 943–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020541
SidarusN.VuorreM.MetcalfeJ.HaggardP. (2017). Investigating the prospective sense of agency: Effects of processing fluency, stimulus ambiguity, and response conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 545. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00545
69.
SpenglerS.von CramonD. Y.BrassM. (2009). Was it me or was it you? How the sense of agency originates from ideomotor learning revealed by fMRI. NeuroImage, 46(1), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.01.047
70.
SperdutiM.DelaveauP.FossatiP.NadelJ. (2011). Different brain structures related to self- and external-agency attribution: A brief review and meta-analysis. Brain Structure and Function, 216(2), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-010-0298-1
71.
StöckerC.HoffmannJ. (2004). The ideomotor principle and motor sequence acquisition: Tone effects facilitate movement chunking. Psychological Research, 68, 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0150-9
72.
StöckerC.SebaldA.HoffmannJ. (2003). The influence of response-effect compatibility in a serial reaction time task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 56(4), 685–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980244000585
73.
SynofzikM. (2015). Comparators and weightings: Neurocognitive accounts of agency. In HaggardP.EitamB. (Eds.), The sense of agency: Social cognition and social neuroscience (online edn, 17 Sept. 2015). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190267278.003.0013
74.
SynofzikM.ThierP.LindnerA. (2006). Internalizing agency of self-action: Perception of one’s own hand movements depends on an adaptable prediction about the sensory action outcome. Journal of Neurophysiology, 96(3), 1592–1601. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00104.2006
75.
SynofzikM.ThierP.LeubeD. T.SchlotterbeckP.LindnerA. (2010). Misattributions of agency in schizophrenia are based on imprecise predictions about the sensory consequences of one’s actions. Brain, 133(1), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awp291
76.
SynofzikM.VosgerauG.NewenA. (2008a). I move, therefore I am: A new theoretical framework to investigate agency and ownership. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.03.008
77.
SynofzikM.VosgerauG.NewenA. (2008b). Beyond the comparator model: A multifactorial two-step account of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.03.010
78.
SynofzikM.VosgerauG.VossM. (2013). The experience of agency: An interplay between prediction and postdiction. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 127. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00127
79.
TapalA.OrenE.DarR.EitamB. (2017). The sense of agency scale: A measure of consciously perceived control over one’s mind, body, and the immediate environment. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1552. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01552
80.
The Jamovi Project (2025). jamovi (Version 2.6) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org
WegnerD. M.WheatleyT. (1999). Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will. American Psychologist, 54(7), 480–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.480
83.
WenW.HaggardP. (2020). Prediction error and regularity detection underlie two dissociable mechanisms for computing the sense of agency. Cognition, 195, 104074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104074
WenkeD.FlemingS. M.HaggardP. (2010). Subliminal priming of actions influences sense of control over effects of action. Cognition, 115(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.016
86.
WolfenstellerU.RugeH. (2011). On the timescale of stimulus-based action-effect learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(7), 1273–1289. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.546417
WolpertD. M.GhahramaniZ. (2000). Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 3(11s), 1212–1217. https://doi.org/10.1038/81497
89.
WolpertD. M.GhahramaniZ.JordanM. I. (1995). An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science, 269(5232), 1880–1882. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7569931
90.
ZiesslerM. (1994). The impact of motor responses on serial-pattern learning. Psychological Research, 57(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00452993
91.
ZiesslerM. (1998). Response-effect learning as a major component of implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24(4), 962–978. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.962
92.
ZiesslerM.NattkemperD. (2001). Learning of event sequences is based on response-effect learning: Further evidence from a serial reaction task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27(3), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.595
93.
ZitoG. A.AndereggL. B.ApazoglouK.MüriR. M.WiestR.HoltforthM. G.AybekS. (2020). Transcranial magnetic stimulation over the right temporoparietal junction influences the sense of agency in healthy humans. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 45(4), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.190099
94.
ZitoG. A.de Sousa RibeiroR.KamalE.LedergerberD.ImbachL.PolaniaR. (2023). Self-modulation of the sense of agency via neurofeedback enhances sensory-guided behavioral control. Cerebral Cortex, 33(24), 11447–11455. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhad360
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
