ArticlePsychophysiology2025
Conflicting Motor Plans and Sensory Attenuation: Evidence From Event-Related Potentials for Sounds Generated by Pro- and Antisaccades.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reduction of neural responses to self- versus externally generated stimuli has been ascribed to predictions based on an efference copy of motor commands. However, general predictive mechanisms not specific to movements may also play a role. For antisaccades, that is, eye movements in the opposite direction of a target stimulus, an automated prosaccade has to be suppressed, which may lead to conflicting efference copy signals, as an efference copy is likely created also for the prosaccade. If efference copies for the suppressed and executed saccade are in conflict with each other, prediction mechanisms based on their information are potentially disturbed, which may affect the processing of saccade-generated stimuli. We compared the N1 and P2 components for pro- and antisaccade-generated sounds with those for visually cued external sounds and found differing temporal dynamics of both components during the course of the experiment, depending on the saccade type. The N1 amplitude for pro- but not antisaccade-generated sounds changed over the course of the experiment, with evidence of an attenuation relative to visually cued sounds at the end. The P2 for prosaccade-generated sounds decreased already earlier than that for antisaccade-generated sounds, which only decreased toward the end of the experiment. These findings suggest that both early (N1) and late (P2) processing of saccade-generated sounds is affected by conflicting efference copies, with the early effect probably reflecting forward model predictions and the later effect indicating agency perception based on these predictions.
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.