Edward Ody, Tilo Kircher, Yifei He, Benjamin Straube
{"title":"自我启动、外部触发和被动运动对动作-结果加工的不同影响:来自感觉和运动预备事件相关电位的见解","authors":"Edward Ody, Tilo Kircher, Yifei He, Benjamin Straube","doi":"10.1111/ejn.70236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Self-initiated voluntary actions are different from externally triggered or passive movements. However, it remains unclear how these movements affect action feedback processing and how they are prepared. Here, we focus on the sensory and motor-preparatory event-related potentials. Participants made active (self-initiated, 700 ms lower limit), quick (respond to a cue as quickly as possible), and passive (finger moved by device) button presses that triggered visual stimuli. The active and quick conditions elicited lower visual N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitudes than the passive condition but did not significantly differ from each other. For prestimulus ERPs (lateralized/readiness potential; L/RP), all conditions showed a negative shift in RP, with lower amplitudes in the quick than in the active condition. There were no significant differences between active and passive. For the LRP, the active and quick conditions showed a sharp deflection shortly before the button press. The amplitude of both conditions was significantly lower than passive around 100 ms before the movement. Our results suggest that active and quick movements involve similar feedback prediction, even though they are prepared differently. They thus offer a finer-grained specification of the efference copy mechanism.</p>","PeriodicalId":11993,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Neuroscience","volume":"62 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ejn.70236","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differential Effects of Self-Initiated, Externally Triggered, and Passive Movements on Action-Outcome Processing: Insights From Sensory and Motor-Preparatory Event Related Potentials\",\"authors\":\"Edward Ody, Tilo Kircher, Yifei He, Benjamin Straube\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ejn.70236\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Self-initiated voluntary actions are different from externally triggered or passive movements. However, it remains unclear how these movements affect action feedback processing and how they are prepared. Here, we focus on the sensory and motor-preparatory event-related potentials. Participants made active (self-initiated, 700 ms lower limit), quick (respond to a cue as quickly as possible), and passive (finger moved by device) button presses that triggered visual stimuli. The active and quick conditions elicited lower visual N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitudes than the passive condition but did not significantly differ from each other. For prestimulus ERPs (lateralized/readiness potential; L/RP), all conditions showed a negative shift in RP, with lower amplitudes in the quick than in the active condition. There were no significant differences between active and passive. For the LRP, the active and quick conditions showed a sharp deflection shortly before the button press. The amplitude of both conditions was significantly lower than passive around 100 ms before the movement. Our results suggest that active and quick movements involve similar feedback prediction, even though they are prepared differently. They thus offer a finer-grained specification of the efference copy mechanism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"62 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ejn.70236\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejn.70236\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejn.70236","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Differential Effects of Self-Initiated, Externally Triggered, and Passive Movements on Action-Outcome Processing: Insights From Sensory and Motor-Preparatory Event Related Potentials
Self-initiated voluntary actions are different from externally triggered or passive movements. However, it remains unclear how these movements affect action feedback processing and how they are prepared. Here, we focus on the sensory and motor-preparatory event-related potentials. Participants made active (self-initiated, 700 ms lower limit), quick (respond to a cue as quickly as possible), and passive (finger moved by device) button presses that triggered visual stimuli. The active and quick conditions elicited lower visual N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitudes than the passive condition but did not significantly differ from each other. For prestimulus ERPs (lateralized/readiness potential; L/RP), all conditions showed a negative shift in RP, with lower amplitudes in the quick than in the active condition. There were no significant differences between active and passive. For the LRP, the active and quick conditions showed a sharp deflection shortly before the button press. The amplitude of both conditions was significantly lower than passive around 100 ms before the movement. Our results suggest that active and quick movements involve similar feedback prediction, even though they are prepared differently. They thus offer a finer-grained specification of the efference copy mechanism.
期刊介绍:
EJN is the journal of FENS and supports the international neuroscientific community by publishing original high quality research articles and reviews in all fields of neuroscience. In addition, to engage with issues that are of interest to the science community, we also publish Editorials, Meetings Reports and Neuro-Opinions on topics that are of current interest in the fields of neuroscience research and training in science. We have recently established a series of ‘Profiles of Women in Neuroscience’. Our goal is to provide a vehicle for publications that further the understanding of the structure and function of the nervous system in both health and disease and to provide a vehicle to engage the neuroscience community. As the official journal of FENS, profits from the journal are re-invested in the neuroscientific community through the activities of FENS.