ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2025
ERP correlates of agency processing in joint action.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the Ouija board phenomenon, the lack of agency experienced by the players leads them to attribute the movement of the planchette to spirits. The aim of this study was to investigate the neural and cognitive mechanisms involved in generating the sense of agency in such a joint action context. Two players (a participant and a confederate) jointly moved a Ouija board-style planchette containing a wireless mouse. This, in turn, moved a digital board on the screen. Participants reported a greater sense of agency in the condition where they had complete control of the planchette (the 'self' condition), and least agency when they passively held the planchette while it was moved by the confederate ('other' condition), with the two 'joint' action conditions in between. While the N1 peak did not differ between conditions, the early part of the N1 differentiated between the joint action conditions, and the solo action conditions. In contrast, the Tb and P2 components differed between the 'other' condition and the 'self' and 'joint' conditions. These findings are discussed with reference to motor-prediction and attentional mechanisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.