Non-motor cues do not generate the perception of self-agency: a critique of cue-integration

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Reddy, Nagireddy Neelakanteswar
dc.coverage.spatial United States of America
dc.date.accessioned 2022-06-21T12:03:30Z
dc.date.available 2022-06-21T12:03:30Z
dc.date.issued 2022-08
dc.identifier.citation Reddy, Nagireddy Neelakanteswar, "Non-motor cues do not generate the perception of self-agency: a critique of cue-integration", Consciousness and Cognition, DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2022.103359, vol. 103, Aug. 2022. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1053-8100
dc.identifier.uri https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2022.103359
dc.identifier.uri https://repository.iitgn.ac.in/handle/123456789/7826
dc.description.abstract How does one know that (s)he is the causal agent of their motor actions? Earlier theories of sense of agency have attributed the capacity for perception of self-agency to the comparator process of the motor-control/action system. However, with the advent of the findings implying a role of non-motor cues (like affective states, beliefs, primed concepts, and social instructions or previews of actions) in the sense of agency literature, the perception of self-agency is hypothesized to be generated even by non-motor cues (based on their relative reliability or weighting estimate); and, this theory is come to be known as the cue-integration of sense of agency. However, the cue-integration theory motivates skepticism about whether it is falsifiable and whether it is plausible that non-motor cues that are sensorily unrelated to typical sensory processes of self-agency have the capacity to produce a perception of self-agency. To substantiate this skepticism, I critically analyze the experimental operationalizations of cue-integration-with the (classic) vicarious agency experiment as a case study-to show that (1) the participants in these experiments are ambiguous about their causal agency over motor actions, (2) thus, these participants resort to reports of self-agency as heuristic judgments (under ambiguity) rather than due to cue-integration per se, and (3) there might not have occurred cue-integration based self-agency reports if these experimental operationalizations had eliminated ambiguity about the causal agency. Thus, I conclude that the reports of self-agency (observed in typical non-motor cues based cue-integration experiments) are not instances of perceptual effect-that are hypothesized to be produced by non-motor cues-but are of heuristic judgment effect.
dc.description.statementofresponsibility by Nagireddy Neelakanteswar Reddy
dc.format.extent vol. 103
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Elsevier en_US
dc.subject Skepticism en_US
dc.subject Ambiguity en_US
dc.subject Sense of agency en_US
dc.subject Cue integration en_US
dc.subject Attribute substitution en_US
dc.subject Uncertainty en_US
dc.title Non-motor cues do not generate the perception of self-agency: a critique of cue-integration en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.relation.journal Consciousness and Cognition


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search Digital Repository


Browse

My Account