Preparation and execution of voluntary action both contribute to awareness of intention

Abstract

How and when motor intentions form has long been controversial. In particular, the extent to which motor preparation and action-related processes produce a conscious experience of intention remains unknown. Here, we used a brain–computer interface (BCI) while participants performed a self-paced movement task to trigger cues upon the detection of a readiness potential (a well-characterized brain signal that precedes movement) or in its absence. The BCI-triggered cues instructed participants either to move or not to move. Following this instruction, participants reported whether they felt they were about to move at the time the cue was presented. Participants were more likely to report an intention (i) when the cue was triggered by the presence of a readiness potential than when the same cue was triggered by its absence, and (ii) when they had just made an action than when they had not. We further describe a time-dependent integration of these two factors: the probability of reporting an intention was maximal when cues were triggered in the presence of a readiness potential, and when participants also executed an action shortly afterwards. Our results provide a first systematic investigation of how prospective and retrospective components are integrated in forming a conscious intention to move.

Suppress me if you can: neurofeedback of the readiness potential

“…Based on the average sample size of previous studies (Schultze-Kraft et al, 2016; Schultze-Kraft et al, 2020; Pares-Pujolras et al, 2019; Schurger et al, 2012), we aimed for a minimum sample size of 15 participants. Considering that some would have to be excluded, we tested a total of 22 participants.…”

“…One traditional account of the RP is that it is a causal precursor to voluntary action and that it reflects an unconscious decision to act (Libet et al, 1983; Libet 1985). While recent studies indeed suggest that the RP is involved in the formation of conscious intention (Pares-Pujolras et al, 2019; Schultze-Kraft et al, 2020) and that it is a signal specific to voluntary action (Travers et al, 2020), other studies have raised questions about its role in movement preparation (Schurger et al, 2012; Schmidt et al, 2016; Schurger, 2018) and its role in human volition has remained unclear (Frith & Haggard, 2018).…”

Suppress Me if You Can: Neurofeedback of the Readiness Potential

“…Based on the average sample size of previous studies (Schurger et al, 2012;Schultze-Kraft et al, 2020;Pares-Pujolras et al, 2019), we aimed for a minimum sample size of 15 participants.…”

“…One traditional account of the RP is that it is a causal precursor to voluntary action and that it reflects an unconscious decision to act (Libet et al, 1983;Libet 1985). While recent studies indeed suggest that the RP is involved in the formation of conscious intention (Pares-Pujolras et al, 2019;Schultze-Kraft et al, 2020) and that it is a signal specific to voluntary action (Travers et al, 2020), other studies have raised questions about its role in movement preparation (Schurger et al, 2012;Schmidt et al, 2016;Schurger, 2018) and its role in human volition has remained unclear (Frith & Haggard, 2018).…”

People confabulate with high confidence when their decisions are supported by weak internal variables

“…These apparently contradicting results could be reconciliated under an integrative account of introspection where both internal decision variables and external, contextual cues contribute to participants’ introspective reports. Yet, although such view began to receive empirical support ( Schultze-Kraft et al 2020 ), the modalities under which these two components could be integrated during introspective processes remained unsettled.…”