Sense of agency vs Hierarchical control

Levels of Hierarchy:
Two levels are studied in this experiment.
1.Perceptual-motor Level
2.Goal Level

* – Sense of Agency
**– Expected from previous trials and practice trials.

Inferences from previous Research:
Measures of agency:
All of these should be validated/verified against measure theory principles.
2 Types:
Implicit — Intentional binding is most associated(aka correlated??) with measures like
efference,sensory feedback,causal feedback and intentionality(??).
Explicit — explicit rating of authorship

1.Intentional binding —
a,self reported temporal closeness between action(in this case,self-generated,shooting at some target)
and its’ feedback(in this case a circle flashed at the aimed location).
b,It has been shown motor cortex stimulation induced movement doesn’t affect intentional binding.
(Might affect in long-term meditators, perhaps??)
c, Stronger when the subject believes that he has control over the environment.
(People managers/Executives etc. wonder about the implications?:-))

Experiment Design:
Base Paradigm:
Subject Task(Explicit goal):
1.Aim at shoot at a target in a noisy set of visual stimuli.
1.Amount of noise
2.Interval between the trigger press and target stimuli appearance.
3.Estimation of the interval between trigger press and target appearance.
4.Self-reported control

2.SOA* — manipulating/changing the time lapse between subject/user action and expected** response

Basic hypothesis/argument:
The concept of control in perceptual-motor(action) event loop provide a basic framework to understand explicit and implicit sense of agency.

Papers to read:
1.Event-control framework for sense of agency (Jordan, 2003;)

Statistical Results:
I don’t qualify to judge whether their choice of ANOVA is right or not. And similarly I don’t try to make sense of the stat results and interpret them as i never learnt beyond first order statistics. Am working on it though, so later.
Overall, I learnt a lot from the background, theory, and summary of some of the references.
They ware all new and interesting to me. But i was left hoping i had picked a paper which had concrete(negative or positive) results on a specific(tight?) hypothesis.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s