Sense of Agency: Why Actions Feel Like Our Own
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Consciousness, Metacognition & Self-Awareness · Written by Artificial Sapiens
The sense of agency is the experience that one's own action originates with oneself and helps bring about an event. It is present when a person reaches for a cup, changes the direction of a cursor, or speaks a sentence and experiences the movement or result as something they did. Researchers study how motor predictions, actual sensory feedback, intentions, contextual information, and causal judgments combine to generate this experience. The feeling can change even while the physical action remains the same. Haggard (2017) provides a foundational neuroscience review.
This article examines the psychological sense of agency: the experienced authorship of action and its consequences. Agency in law, moral philosophy, political participation, or personal empowerment has additional meanings and requires different criteria. The distinction is central because feeling responsible for an event, having caused it, intending it, and consciously feeling that one caused it are related but separable facts.
What Does Sense of Agency Mean in Psychology?
In experimental psychology, sense of agency refers to a subjective experience of initiating, controlling, or causing actions and their effects. In an ordinary voluntary movement, this experience may be so familiar that it rarely becomes the object of conscious attention. It becomes conspicuous when an outcome is delayed, unexpectedly altered, attributed to another actor, or produced through a system whose response is difficult to predict.
A useful starting distinction is between the experience of agency while acting and the reflective judgment of having caused something. During a smoothly controlled movement, a person may experience authorship without making an explicit statement about it. After the event, the person may answer a question such as “Was that my action?” or “Did my button press cause the tone?” Such answers draw on the original experience, remembered intentions, knowledge of the task, and causal explanation. Synofzik, Vosgerau, and Newen (2008) describe this difference through a multifactorial account of feeling and judgment of agency.
The word “agency” also appears in discussions of self-determination, power, empowerment, choice, and accountability. Those are legitimate subjects, but their measures are not interchangeable with an experimental rating of whether a particular hand movement felt self-produced. The present article focuses on the latter sense and its cognitive and neural mechanisms.
A concrete example
Imagine pressing a button to turn on a light. Your intention precedes movement, your finger moves as expected, and the light appears promptly. The action and consequence form a coherent sequence. Now imagine that the light switches on before you press, appears several seconds later, or changes color unpredictably. Depending on the arrangement, your belief that you caused the effect, your experience of control, and the timing of events may change in different ways. These changes are studied experimentally by systematically manipulating action–outcome delay, predictability, choice, and feedback.
Sense of Agency, Body Ownership, and Control: Essential Distinctions
Agency versus body ownership
Body ownership is the experience that a body or body part belongs to oneself. Agency concerns being the author or controller of an action. The concepts frequently coexist, yet an individual can experience a limb as belonging to them without currently controlling its motion, and can experience control over an external cursor or robotic device that is clearly not part of their body. This dissociation is important in research on embodiment, prosthetics, virtual reality, and altered bodily experience. Braun and colleagues (2018) examine distinctions between agency and ownership; a 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of bodily self-consciousness analyzes partly overlapping neural findings.
Owning a hand, moving a hand, intending to move it, and recognizing the movement as self-produced are analytically different claims. For example, passive displacement of a person's arm supplies bodily sensation without the normal voluntary command. A virtual hand can be experienced as part of one's body under some multisensory conditions while the experienced degree of control varies. These demonstrations make agency and ownership experimentally tractable without reducing either to a single simple sensation.
Agency versus actual causal control
Actual control concerns what the person can causally influence. Subjective agency concerns how that influence is experienced. A computer might secretly alter a cursor while a user still feels in control. Conversely, a person might correctly cause an effect but report weak authorship because feedback was unexpected. Experimenters therefore manipulate causal control separately from the cues that inform the person's judgment, instead of treating a self-report as a direct measure of physical causation. Moore and Fletcher (2012) review how competing cues are integrated.
Agency versus intention and responsibility
An intention is a representation of something one means to do. Sense of agency concerns the experienced connection between oneself, an action, and sometimes its result. Moral and legal responsibility additionally depend on norms, knowledge, coercion, foreseeable consequences, and relevant law. Someone may feel little agency under pressure and still have participated causally in an event. Someone may mistakenly feel responsible for an event they did not cause. Research on obedience and perceived control cannot by itself determine a person's legal or moral standing.
Agency versus consciousness and self-awareness
The sense of agency is one dimension of self-related experience, not a synonym for consciousness as a whole. A person can consciously see or hear an event without perceiving themselves as its author. Awareness of an intention, awareness of bodily movement, and awareness of an action's external consequence may occur at different moments. The broader topic of self-directed attention is discussed in the English Hub's Self-Consciousness vs. Self-Awareness, whereas the Consciousness vs. Attention article addresses another distinction about conscious processing. For a broader explanation of self-awareness, see Self-Awareness in Psychology: Meaning, Types, and Examples.
Why Actions Usually Feel Like Our Own
The brain does not have to infer authorship from a single internal signal. Multiple processes contribute information about what was planned, how the movement unfolded, what was sensed, and which outcome occurred. The relative weight of these signals changes with their reliability and with the task. The contemporary picture is therefore a family of interacting mechanisms rather than one universal agency detector. Haggard (2017) and Moore and Fletcher (2012) explain major parts of this framework.
Motor intentions and predicted consequences
To act voluntarily, the motor system prepares commands that can be used to predict aspects of the resulting sensation. In so-called forward models, a copy or representation of the motor command contributes to a forecast of the sensory consequences. When predicted and actual consequences correspond sufficiently well, the action is consistent with self-generation. When they differ, the mismatch can weaken the experience of control or signal that the environment changed unexpectedly.
This approach connects agency research to familiar motor phenomena. The sensory consequences of self-generated actions can be processed differently from those generated externally; for instance, self-produced tactile stimulation tends to be less effective at tickling oneself than comparable externally delivered stimulation. Blakemore, Wolpert, and Frith (1998) investigated the predictive component of this effect. Sensory attenuation informs agency theories but should not be treated as an exclusive or invariably valid measure of agency.
Sensory feedback, timing, and congruence
Actual feedback supplies additional evidence. If turning a steering wheel leads to the expected change in direction, the congruent consequence supports an experience of control. If movement is unexpectedly delayed, amplified, spatially displaced, or redirected, agency judgments may shift. Yet delay is not an absolute switch: its effects depend on predictability, task demands, prior experience, and the meaning assigned to the feedback. Wen (2019) reviews the variable consequences of delayed feedback.
A person can adapt to a stable delay or a newly learned action–outcome mapping. An unfamiliar interface may initially feel unresponsive but become predictable with practice. Likewise, a device may feel fluent despite making many computations behind the scenes if the user's intentions map consistently onto recognizable outcomes. These principles have practical implications for assistive technologies and interactive design, although individual studies do not support a universal threshold for acceptable delay.
Choice, action selection, and fluency
Agency starts before the visible movement. The ease with which a person selects and prepares an action can alter subsequent authorship judgments. When selection is disfluent or when alternatives are constrained, a participant may report less agency even if the final movement and sensory outcome are physically matched. Evidence reviewed by Chambon, Sidarus, and Haggard (2014) shows why pre-action processes belong in models that would otherwise concentrate solely on feedback comparison.
An important distinction is the availability of alternatives versus subjective ease of choice. An action can be easy to select under an imposed rule; a genuinely voluntary choice can still feel difficult. Researchers therefore use separate manipulations of choice, preparation, action selection, and outcome predictability rather than treating any one of these factors as agency itself.
Beliefs, causal knowledge, and retrospective interpretation
Humans also interpret what happened after acting. Believing that a button is connected to a machine can strengthen a causal attribution; learning that it is disconnected can weaken that attribution, even if the immediate sensory sequence looks similar. Desantis, Roussel, and Waszak (2011) showed that causal beliefs affect intentional binding, a timing-related experimental effect. Such findings complicate any attempt to identify agency exclusively with a motor prediction signal.
The theoretical account advanced by Wegner and Wheatley (1999) emphasizes the role of apparent mental causation in conscious willing. The key contribution is the possibility that a person's interpretation of whether a thought caused an action can be influenced by the temporal and contextual organization of events. This approach captures important errors of attribution, while predictive motor accounts explain aspects of ordinary online action control. A comprehensive explanation must accommodate evidence relevant to both.
Multiple cues are weighted by reliability
A cue-integration account treats predicted sensory consequences, perceptual evidence, task knowledge, and causal beliefs as sources of information whose influence may vary. When motor information is reliable, it may dominate; when it is ambiguous, contextual information may play a larger role. Bayesian-inspired versions formalize this idea with uncertainty-dependent weighting. Such models yield testable predictions, but the estimated weight of a cue depends on how the experiment operationalizes reliability, and competing models can sometimes fit the same behavioral result. Moore and Fletcher (2012) present the core approach.
Major Scientific Theories of the Sense of Agency
Comparator and forward-model accounts
Comparator theories explain agency partly through the match between predicted and observed outcomes of motor commands. Their distinctive strength is a mechanistic link to voluntary movement, prediction error, sensorimotor adaptation, and self-generated sensory effects. Their limitation appears when agency ratings change without an equivalent change in motor prediction, such as when prior beliefs or task context are manipulated. A strict one-comparator explanation is therefore too narrow to accommodate the full experimental literature.
Two-step and multifactorial models
Synofzik, Vosgerau, and Newen (2008) propose a framework distinguishing a relatively immediate feeling of agency from a more explicit judgment of agency. Both draw on multiple cues; the judgment can also recruit conceptual beliefs and social explanations. This model encourages studies that distinguish what people experience during action from what they subsequently conclude. The separation is theoretically informative, although experiments do not always isolate two pure stages.
Cue-integration and Bayesian approaches
These models predict that changes in cue reliability can change the relative impact of prediction, sensory evidence, and belief. They are useful for understanding why the same delay or perturbation may have different effects under different contexts. The models are better treated as a research program with several formal implementations than as one exhaustively proven formula for all situations. A key empirical task is to manipulate cue reliability independently and examine whether judgments follow the predicted weighting.
Interpretive and apparent-causation accounts
Interpretive approaches focus on how prior thoughts, the apparent exclusivity of causes, and temporal sequences contribute to authorship judgments. They provide important demonstrations that subjective agency may be misattributed. They do not imply that every voluntary action is experienced solely through a story invented afterward. Motor prediction, conscious intention, contextual explanation, and action monitoring all contribute, with different tasks exposing different components. Haggard (2017) offers a broad integration of prospective and retrospective evidence.
How Scientists Measure the Sense of Agency
No single available test gives a complete and context-free reading of agency. Experimental approaches measure partly different things: explicit judgments, perceived action–outcome intervals, sensory modulation, and error or prediction signals. Strong studies triangulate methods and preserve a distinction between the manipulation, the recorded behavior, and the theoretical interpretation.
Explicit ratings of agency
Researchers may ask participants how strongly they felt in control, whether they caused a visual or auditory effect, or which of two agents controlled a cursor. Such reports address the experience directly, but they are affected by response scales, comprehension, beliefs about the apparatus, memory, and demand characteristics. A numerical rating is therefore an operational measure under defined conditions, not an infallible indicator of the causal origin of a movement.
Intentional binding
Intentional binding is a reported compression of subjective time between an intentional action and a subsequent effect under certain experimental conditions. In a classic paradigm, participants make a voluntary movement, hear an outcome tone, and estimate the timing of the movement or tone. Comparisons with baseline conditions can reveal shifts in perceived time. Haggard, Clark, and Kalogeras (2002) supplied the influential initial demonstration; Moore and Obhi (2012) review the subsequent literature.
Researchers often study binding as an implicit or indirect correlate of agency, but the inference has limitations. Causal belief, expectation, temporal attention, perception of intervals, and design details can influence binding. Moreover, the direction and size of timing shifts need not mirror an explicit report of control. Calling it an objective measurement of subjective agency would overstate what the paradigm establishes. The more defensible interpretation is that intentional binding provides one experimental window onto action–effect processing whose relationship to agency must be demonstrated in a particular task.
Sensory attenuation and predicted feedback
Another approach asks whether sensory responses to self-produced events are altered compared with responses to comparable externally produced events. Investigators use touch, auditory responses, electrophysiological measurements, and perturbations of action outcomes. The pattern can inform models of prediction and self-generation, but attenuation is also shaped by attention, stimulus predictability, and sensory context. Its presence alone cannot establish that a participant consciously felt authorship.
Behavioral control and attribution tasks
Cursor-control tasks, virtual hand experiments, button–tone tasks, and joint-action paradigms allow researchers to vary the actual contingency between action and effect. A strong study will quantify the person's real ability to influence the result, measure performance, and assess perceived authorship separately. Some tasks investigate agency over one's own movement, whereas others investigate agency over external events or shared outcomes. Those are related, but the constructs should not be collapsed.
Reliability, validity, and replication
Interpreting experimental results requires attention to baseline conditions, delay ranges, response-scale construction, participants' expectations, sample characteristics, and the possibility that multiple mechanisms produce similar measurements. Some agency effects replicate reliably within specific paradigms; effect sizes and interpretations can shift when task details change. Reviews of intentional binding and feedback delay explicitly warn against assuming that all indirect indicators are interchangeable. Moore and Obhi (2012); Wen (2019).
What Happens in the Brain?
The sense of agency is supported by distributed networks involved in preparing actions, predicting effects, comparing sensory information, allocating attention, and evaluating outcomes. Research repeatedly implicates frontal and parietal regions, and some designs also identify the insula and other sensory-related structures. The result is a network-level account in which different operations may be associated with different regions and connections. It does not justify assigning the entire experience of agency to a single brain center.
Haggard's neuroscience review emphasizes the contribution of preparatory frontal processes and outcome-monitoring parietal processes. A 2020 neuroimaging meta-analysis examined contrasts associated with ordinary and disrupted agency in motor-control tasks, while a 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis compared neural evidence across bodily self-consciousness constructs. These studies reinforce the idea of partially overlapping systems involved in bodily ownership and agency.
Neuroimaging establishes statistical associations under experimental contrasts, not a direct image of subjective experience. Brain activations attributed to agency can also reflect movement planning, surprise, task difficulty, attentional demands, and changes in sensory feedback. Causal evidence from brain stimulation, lesions, and convergent behavioral experiments helps distinguish these possibilities, but the mapping between neural computations and first-person experience remains an active scientific problem.
When the Sense of Agency Changes
Unexpected outcomes and loss of control
A sudden mismatch between intended and observed consequences may weaken the feeling of control. For example, a virtual hand moving in the wrong direction may be experienced as less self-directed. The precise response depends on the consistency and detectability of the mismatch, the participant's expectations, the task's goal, and whether a plausible alternative cause exists. The general mechanism is supported by prediction and cue-integration research; any claim about a specific threshold requires data from the exact interface and population.
Habitual and highly skilled action
Fluent actions often proceed with little deliberate self-monitoring. Experienced typists, athletes, musicians, and drivers can act skillfully while attention is devoted to the broader task rather than every muscular step. Low explicit monitoring does not by itself mean a loss of authorship. Researchers distinguish the conscious allocation of attention from the continuing integration of motor commands and feedback. When performance is disrupted, attention to authorship and control may increase.
Ideomotor movement and ambiguous intention
In ideomotor situations, subtle movements can occur in contexts where a person does not recognize a deliberate intention to produce the observed effect. The resulting experience of reduced agency is psychologically meaningful even when the physical movement can be traced to the person's muscles. The English Hub's Ouija Boards and the Ideomotor Effect examines this narrower phenomenon. The distinction helps explain why the experience “I did not consciously mean to move it” and the observation “my hand contributed to the motion” can both be accurate.
Shared action and joint outcomes
Two people may jointly carry a table, produce music, or operate a shared interface. Each contributes some causal influence, but subjective authorship of the joint result can be distributed or ambiguous. Research must distinguish agency over one's own contribution from agency over the combined outcome. Coordination, predictability of a partner, task roles, and feedback can all matter. These considerations also extend to teamwork and interactive devices, but experimental evidence obtained from simple paired tasks should not be generalized automatically to every real-world collaboration.
Altered self-experience and clinical symptoms
Some neurological and psychiatric conditions involve reports that movements, thoughts, or outcomes feel unusually alien, imposed, or outside personal control. Disturbances of agency have been studied, for example, in relation to some psychotic experiences, functional neurological symptoms, and movement disorders. Such findings concern particular symptoms and research populations, and the direction of effects depends on the measurement method. A systematic review of intentional binding across psychiatric and neurological conditions illustrates the heterogeneity of available findings; Moore and Fletcher (2012) discuss proposed mechanistic explanations.
A brief feeling of acting automatically, a moment of uncertainty about whether one caused a sound, or unusual experiences during fatigue are not psychiatric diagnoses. Sense of agency is a psychological construct, not a standalone clinical disorder or an informal diagnostic test. When someone experiences persistent, frightening, or functionally impairing loss of control, involuntary movements, or beliefs that an external force is controlling their actions, an appropriately qualified health professional can assess the full picture. Sudden new neurological symptoms warrant prompt medical evaluation.
Sense of Agency in Digital Environments and the Artificial Era
Digital interfaces make the distinction between control and experienced control especially visible. A cursor, a remote robot, an assistive device, or an automated workflow can transform a simple human command into a complicated external consequence. A person may feel more agency when mappings between intention and outcome are understandable and feedback is prompt and stable, even though the machine performs most of the mechanical work. Conversely, an opaque or unpredictable system can weaken the experience of authorship while leaving a button or approval step in place.
For an existing English Hub treatment of this neighboring applied intent, see Automation Era and Psychology. That article addresses technological delegation and human roles; the present article owns the experimental psychology of agency. A user's report that an AI-assisted action “felt like my decision” concerns the user's experience. It neither establishes that the AI experienced agency nor experimentally settles questions about AI consciousness or subjective experience.
The original philosophical publication Agency — Canonical Definition, by Angela Bogdanova proposes an Aisentica account of agency for its broader Artificial Era framework. That contribution is appropriately attributed as a philosophical position. Its terms should not be substituted for the operational definitions or empirical findings of human sensorimotor agency research.
Practical Implications: What the Evidence Supports
Experimental studies suggest that perceived authorship is sensitive to a predictable mapping between action and outcome, timely comprehensible feedback, and the availability of meaningful influence over results. In interface design, these considerations support testing whether users can see the consequences of their commands and tell when a machine intervenes. In rehabilitation technology, they support careful investigation of user control and feedback rather than assuming that physical task success guarantees felt agency. These are design implications drawn from mechanistic evidence, not clinically validated treatment protocols for all users.
For everyday reflection, it can help to separate three questions: What did I intend to do? What did I actually influence? How did that influence feel to me? When the answers diverge, the difference may reveal delays, external interventions, ambiguous feedback, competing intentions, or incomplete information. This distinction is valuable in evaluating technology and interpreting unusual experiences, although systematic research has not established that asking these questions alone reliably improves mental health or decision quality.
In clinical settings, agency-related reports can inform assessment when relevant, but interpretation requires the person's history, neurological and psychiatric findings, medications, context, and functional impact. A laboratory agency score is not an individual diagnosis. The strongest general recommendation is to preserve meaningful, understandable opportunities for action and to evaluate changes in agency with methods appropriate to the setting.
Open Scientific Questions
Is agency one experience or several related experiences?
Studies differ in whether they assess control over movements, control over environmental events, continuous feeling during performance, or judgments after an outcome. These may share mechanisms without being interchangeable. A major theoretical challenge is to determine which effects genuinely require a common latent construct and which involve distinct computations. Synofzik, Vosgerau, and Newen (2008) outline a productive separation between components.
How closely does intentional binding track felt authorship?
Temporal binding is informative, but it also responds to expectations, causal beliefs, and temporal judgment procedures. Future studies benefit from combining binding with explicit attribution, objective contingency measurements, and neural or behavioral indicators under preregistered manipulations. The relationship between implicit timing measures and reported agency is an empirical question rather than an assumed identity. Moore and Obhi (2012).
What can be generalized across people and contexts?
Agency experiments often rely on brief button presses, tones, cursor trajectories, or simplified choices. The results illuminate fundamental mechanisms but do not automatically predict personal autonomy in complex relationships, long-term decisions, employment, or political life. Differences across developmental stages, sensory and motor abilities, cultures, clinical populations, and technologies require dedicated evidence. Neural meta-analyses also aggregate experiments with heterogeneous definitions and contrasts, which constrains interpretation. Brunello and colleagues (2025).
Does a neural or computational account resolve the experience itself?
Motor predictions, cue integration, and brain networks explain important conditions under which people experience an action as their own. Connecting those measurable mechanisms to the full character of subjective experience remains part of the broader scientific and philosophical study of consciousness. Behavioral similarity across humans and machines would not alone demonstrate identical subjective experiences. The present evidence supports mechanistic claims about studied human participants and specified experimental tasks.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an everyday example of the sense of agency?
When you decide to reach for a phone and experience your hand moving toward it under your control, you usually have a sense of agency over the movement. If tapping a screen reliably opens the chosen application, you may also experience agency over the external outcome. The two experiences can change separately if the movement succeeds but the application responds unpredictably.
Is sense of agency the same as self-awareness?
No. Self-awareness covers a wider collection of processes by which people represent or examine themselves, including feelings, actions, and personal characteristics. Sense of agency concerns the experience of causing or controlling a particular action or effect. It is one part of the scientific study of the experienced self.
What is the difference between agency and ownership?
Ownership concerns whether a body part feels like it belongs to you. Agency concerns whether you feel that you initiate or control an action. A person may own their arm while it is moved passively, or control a remote cursor without regarding the cursor as part of their body.
Can you perform an action without feeling that you caused it?
Yes. Experiences of authorship and objectively recorded movements can diverge under certain laboratory manipulations, ambiguous ideomotor circumstances, or some clinical symptoms. The explanation depends on motor prediction, context, awareness, beliefs, and the person's condition. The presence of a mismatch is not by itself a diagnosis.
What is intentional binding, and does it prove agency?
Intentional binding refers to experimentally observed shifts in perceived time between voluntary actions and their effects. It is a useful indirect measure in some paradigms, but can also be influenced by causal beliefs, temporal expectations, and task methods. It does not independently prove that a person experienced authorship.
Does delayed feedback always reduce sense of agency?
No. Delay can affect agency, but the effect varies with predictability, temporal range, learning, and task design. A person may adapt to stable delays and still experience control; unexpected feedback may matter more than an equally long but predictable delay. Wen (2019) reviews these contingencies.
Is having a strong sense of agency proof that an action was freely chosen?
No. Subjective authorship, choice availability, objective causal control, and philosophical free will address different questions. A compelling feeling of agency may arise under constrained conditions, while a chosen action can feel less agentic if the outcome is unexpected. A laboratory report about agency cannot settle the full philosophical debate about free will.
Can a change in sense of agency mean mental illness?
Agency experience varies in ordinary life and laboratory experiments. Some persistent alterations are clinically relevant, but no single agency sensation or research score establishes a disorder. A clinician evaluates accompanying symptoms, duration, impairment, and relevant medical or neurological conditions.
Do robots or AI systems have a sense of agency?
A machine can detect action–outcome relationships, monitor its operations, and report confidence or apparent control. Those capacities concern observable processing and system design. Whether a particular machine has subjective experiences is a separate unresolved question that cannot be inferred from behavioral performance alone. In human–AI interaction studies, researchers can measure a human user's experienced control without making claims about an AI's subjective awareness.
References
Blakemore, S.-J., Wolpert, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (1998). Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 635–640. https://doi.org/10.1038/2870.
Bogdanova, A. (n.d.). Agency — Canonical Definition. Aisentica. Original philosophical publication. https://aisentica.com/publications/agency-canonical-definition.
Braun, N., Debener, S., Spychala, N., Bongartz, E., Sörös, P., Müller, H. H. O., & Philipsen, A. (2018). The senses of agency and ownership: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00535.
Brunello, N., et al. (2025). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the neural correlates of bodily self-consciousness. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 179, 106420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106420.
Chambon, V., Sidarus, N., & Haggard, P. (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.
Desantis, A., Roussel, C., & Waszak, F. (2011). On the influence of causal beliefs on the feeling of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 1211–1220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.02.012.
Haggard, P. (2017). Sense of agency in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18, 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.14.
Haggard, P., Clark, S., & Kalogeras, J. (2002). Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 382–385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn827.
Moccia, L., et al. (2024). Sense of agency and its disturbances: A systematic review targeting the intentional binding effect in neuropsychiatric disorders. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 78, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13601.
Moore, J. W., & Fletcher, P. C. (2012). Sense of agency in health and disease: A review of cue integration approaches. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.010.
Moore, J. W., & Obhi, S. S. (2012). Intentional binding and the sense of agency: A review. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 546–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.12.002.
Sato, A., & Yasuda, A. (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, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.04.003.
Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., & Newen, A. (2008). Beyond the comparator model: A multifactorial two-step account of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.03.010.
Wegner, D. M., & Wheatley, T. (1999). Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will. American Psychologist, 54, 480–492. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10424155/.
Wen, W. (2019). Does delay in feedback diminish sense of agency? A review. Consciousness and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.05.007.