Sense of agency and ideomotor learning: High dispositional sense of agency is linked to better action-effect learning

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Sense of agency ideomotor learning sequence learning response-effect compatibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aarts

Custers

Wegner

D. 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

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4

Blakemore

S. J.

Wolpert

D. M.

Frith

C. D.

(2002). Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01907-1

Blakemore

S.-J.

Frith

C. D.

Wolpert

D. M.

(2001). The cerebellum is involved in predicting the sensory consequences of action. NeuroReport, 12(9), 1879–1884.

Bu-Omer

H. M.

Gofuku

Sato

Miyakoshi

(2021). Parieto-occipital alpha and low-beta EEG power reflect sense of agency. Brain Sciences, 11(6), 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060743

Chambon

Haggard

(2012). Sense of control depends on fluency of action selection, not motor performance. Cognition, 125(3), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.011

Chambon

Sidarus

Haggard

(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

Charalampaki

Ninija Karabanov

Ritterband-Rosenbaum

Bo Nielsen

Roman Siebner

Schram Christensen

(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

Cleeremans

Mcclelland

J. 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.

Cloutier

Neil Macrae

(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.

Desantis

Roussel

Waszak

(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.

Dignath

Pfister

Eder

A. B.

Kiesel

Kunde

(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

13.

Dutzi

I. B.

Hommel

(2009). The microgenesis of action-effect binding. Psychological Research PRPF, 73, 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0161-7

14.

Elsner

Hommel

(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.

Ernst

M. O.

Banks

M. 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.

Fagard

Esseily

Jacquey

O’Regan

Somogyi

(2018). Fetal origin of sensorimotor behavior. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 12, 23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2018.00023

17.

Friston

(2012). Prediction, perception and agency. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 248–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.11.014

18.

Friston

Schwartenbeck

FitzGerald

Moutoussis

Behrens

Dolan

R. 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.

Frith

C. D.

Blakemore

S. J.

Wolpert

D. 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

20.

Gallagher

(2012). Multiple aspects in the sense of agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.003

21.

Gentsch

Kathmann

Schütz-Bosbach

(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.

Ginsburg

(2010). The intelligence of moving bodies: A somatic view of life and its consequences. AWAREing Press.

23.

Greenwald

A. 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

24.

Haarmeier

Bunjes

Lindner

Berret

Thier

(2001). Optimizing visual motion perception during eye movements. Neuron, 32(3), 527–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00486-X

25.

Haggard

(2017). Sense of agency in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(4), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1038/NRN.2017.14

26.

Haggard

Tsakiris

(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.

Hoffmann

Lenhard

Sebald

Pfister

(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.

Hoffmann

Sebald

Stöcker

(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.

Hommel

(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.

Hommel

Elsner

(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.

Hommel

Müsseler

Aschersleben

Prinz

(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

32.

Hon

Yeo

(2021). Having a sense of agency can improve memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 28, 946–952. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01849-x

33.

Hughes

Desantis

Waszak

(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.

Hurault

J. C.

Broc

Crône

Tedesco

Brunel

(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.

Janczyk

Heinemann

Pfister

(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.

Kang

S. Y.

C. H.

Shim

Nahab

F. B.

Park

Kim

D. W.

Kakareka

Miletta

Hallett

(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.

Körding

K. P.

Wolpert

D. M.

(2004). Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning. Nature, 427(6971), 244–247. https://doi.org/10.1038/NATURE02169

38.

Kunde

(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.

Lachman

M. E.

Weaver

S. 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

40.

Legaspi

Toyoizumi

(2019). A Bayesian psychophysics model of sense of agency. Nature Communications, 10(1), 4250. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12170-0

41.

Legrand

(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.

Lewicki

Czyzewska

Hoffman

(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.

Lindner

Thier

Kircher

T. T. J.

Haarmeier

Leube

D. 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

44.

Loon

(2020). The memory effects of agency. https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/176682

45.

Mathôt

Schreij

Theeuwes

(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.

Moeller

Pfister

Kunde

Frings

(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.

Moeller

Pfister

Kunde

Frings

(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.

Moore

J. W.

Middleton

Haggard

Fletcher

P. 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.

Moore

J. W.

Wegner

D. M.

Haggard

(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

50.

Nahab

F. B.

Kundu

Gallea

Kakareka

Pursley

Pohida

Miletta

Friedman

Hallett

(2011). The neural processes underlying self-agency. Cerebral Cortex, 21(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq059

51.

Nattkemper

Prinz

(1997). Stimulus and response anticipation in a serial reaction task. Psychological Research, 60(1–2), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419683

52.

Nissen

M. J.

Bullemer

(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.

Nosofsky

R. M.

Palmeri

T. J.

McKinley

S. 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

54.

Pacherie

(2007). The sense of control and the sense of agency. Psyche, 13(1), 1–30. https://hal.science/ijn_00352565

55.

Pacherie

(2008). The phenomenology of action: A conceptual framework. Cognition, 107(1), 179–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.09.003

56.

Parks-Leduc

Feldman

Bardi

(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.

Paulhus

D. L.

Carey

J. 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.

Pfister

Kunde

(2013). Dissecting the response in response-effect compatibility. Experimental Brain Research, 224, 647–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3343-x

59.

Pfister

Kiesel

Melcher

(2010). Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations. Acta Psychologica, 135(3), 316–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.08.006

60.

Piaget

(1952). The origins of intelligence in children. Internsational University.

61.

Polito

Barnier

A. J.

Woody

E. Z.

Connors

M. 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.

Rotter

J. 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.

Sato

Yasuda

(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

64.

Schwarz

K. A.

Burger

Dignath

Kunde

Pfister

(2018). Action-effect binding and agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 65, 304–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.10.001

65.

Seghezzi

Convertino

Zapparoli

(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.

Shin

Y. K.

Proctor

R. W.

Capaldi

E. J.

(2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 943–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020541

67.

Sidarus

Vuorre

Haggard

(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

68.

Sidarus

Vuorre

Metcalfe

Haggard

(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.

Spengler

von Cramon

D. Y.

Brass

(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.

Sperduti

Delaveau

Fossati

Nadel

(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.

Stöcker

Hoffmann

(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.

Stöcker

Sebald

Hoffmann

(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.

Synofzik

(2015). Comparators and weightings: Neurocognitive accounts of agency. In Haggard

Eitam

(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.

Synofzik

Thier

Lindner

(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.

Synofzik

Thier

Leube

D. T.

Schlotterbeck

Lindner

(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.

Synofzik

Vosgerau

Newen

(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.

Synofzik

Vosgerau

Newen

(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.

Synofzik

Vosgerau

Voss

(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.

Tapal

Oren

Dar

Eitam

(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

81.

Verschoor

S. A.

Hommel

(2017). Self-by-doing: The role of action for self-acquisition. Social Cognition, 35(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1521/SOCO.2017.35.2.127

82.

Wegner

D. M.

Wheatley

(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.

Wen

Haggard

(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

84.

Wen

Kuroki

Asama

(2019). The sense of agency in driving automation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2691. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02691

85.

Wenke

Fleming

S. M.

Haggard

(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.

Wolfensteller

Ruge

(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

87.

Wolpert

D. M.

Flanagan

J. R.

(2001). Motor prediction. Current Biology, 11(18), R729–R732. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00432-8

88.

Wolpert

D. M.

Ghahramani

(2000). Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 3(11s), 1212–1217. https://doi.org/10.1038/81497

89.

Wolpert

D. M.

Ghahramani

Jordan

M. I.

(1995). An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science, 269(5232), 1880–1882. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7569931

90.

Ziessler

(1994). The impact of motor responses on serial-pattern learning. Psychological Research, 57(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00452993

91.

Ziessler

(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.

Ziessler

Nattkemper

(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.

Zito

G. A.

Anderegg

L. B.

Apazoglou

Müri

R. M.

Wiest

Holtforth

M. G.

Aybek

(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.

Zito

G. A.

de Sousa Ribeiro

Kamal

Ledergerber

Imbach

Polania

(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.

0.00 MB

3.27 MB