Did I Do That? Brain–Computer Interfacing and the Sense of Agency

Brain–computer interfacing (BCI) aims at directly capturing brain activity in order to enable a user to drive an application such as a wheelchair without using peripheral neural or motor systems. Low signal to noise ratio’s, low processing speed, and huge intra- and inter-subject variability currently call for the addition of intelligence to the applications, in order to compensate for errors in the production and/or the decoding of brain signals. However, the combination of minds and machines through BCI’s and intelligent devices (IDs) can affect a user’s sense of agency. Particularly confusing cases can arise when the behavioral control switches implicitly from user to ID. I will suggest that in such situations users may be insecure about the extent to which the resulting behavior, whether successful or unsuccessful, is genuinely their own. Hence, while performing an action, a user of a BCI–ID may be uncertain about being the agent of the act. Several cases will be examined and some implications for (legal) responsibility (e.g. establishing the presence of a ‘guilty mind’) are discussed.

[1]  Christopher C. Berger,et al.  Mind control? Creating illusory intentions through a phony brain–computer interface , 2010, Consciousness and Cognition.

[2]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces , 2010 .

[3]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Gentle Introduction , 2009 .

[4]  Hakwan C. Lau,et al.  Manipulating the Experienced Onset of Intention after Action Execution , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[5]  Shaun Gallagher,et al.  The natural philosophy of agency , 2007 .

[6]  John P. Donoghue,et al.  Connecting cortex to machines: recent advances in brain interfaces , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[7]  B. Sparrow,et al.  Clever hands: uncontrolled intelligence in facilitated communication. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  J. Jacobson,et al.  An experimental assessment of facilitated communication. , 1993, Mental retardation.

[9]  Christian Laugier,et al.  Controlling a Wheelchair Indoors Using Thought , 2007, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[10]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  Looking for the agent: an investigation into consciousness of action and self-consciousness in schizophrenic patients , 1997, Cognition.

[11]  Diane Twachtman-Cullen.  A Passion to Believe , 1997 .

[12]  L. Nadel,et al.  Conscious Will and Responsibility. A tribute to Benjamin Libet , 2010 .

[13]  José del R. Millán,et al.  The role of shared-control in BCI-based telepresence , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[14]  Dennis J. McFarland,et al.  Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control , 2002, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[15]  Vijay Kumar,et al.  Integrating Human Inputs with Autonomous Behaviors on an Intelligent Wheelchair Platform , 2007, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[16]  E. Sellers,et al.  How many people are able to control a P300-based brain–computer interface (BCI)? , 2009, Neuroscience Letters.

[17]  G. R. Muller,et al.  Brain oscillations control hand orthosis in a tetraplegic , 2000, Neuroscience Letters.

[18]  Koen V. Hindriks,et al.  Towards a computational model of the self-attribution of agency , 2011, IEA/AIE'11.

[19]  F. Vignemont,et al.  The sense of agency: A philosophical and empirical review of the “Who” system , 2004, Consciousness and Cognition.

[20]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  The Hybrid BCI , 2010, Frontiers in Neuroscience.

[21]  P. Haggard,et al.  Having a body versus moving your body: How agency structures body-ownership , 2006, Consciousness and Cognition.

[22]  D. Wegner,et al.  Modulating the sense of agency with external cues , 2009, Consciousness and Cognition.

[23]  E. Donchin,et al.  Talking off the top of your head: toward a mental prosthesis utilizing event-related brain potentials. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[24]  Petter Johansson,et al.  Failure to Detect Mismatches Between Intention and Outcome in a Simple Decision Task , 2005, Science.

[25]  Edmund L. Gettier.  Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? , 1963, Arguing About Knowledge.

[26]  José del R. Millán,et al.  Context-Based Filtering for Assisted Brain-Actuated Wheelchair Driving , 2007, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[27]  A. Cronin-Golomb,et al.  The alien hand: cases, categorizations, and anatomical correlates. , 2003, Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews.

[28]  David Tartakover,et al.  How many people? , 2007, Lancet.

[29]  Robert R. Hoffman,et al.  Influencing versus Informing Design, Part 1: A Gap Analysis , 2008, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[30]  E. Langer,et al.  Heads I win, tails it's chance: The illusion of control as a function of the sequence of outcomes in a purely chance task. , 1975 .

[31]  B. Sparrow,et al.  Vicarious agency: experiencing control over the movements of others. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  M. Ferguson,et al.  Beyond behaviorism: on the automaticity of higher mental processes. , 2000, Psychological bulletin.

[33]  S. Blakemore,et al.  Delusions of alien control in the normal brain , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[34]  S. Thompson,et al.  Illusions of control, underestimations, and accuracy: a control heuristic explanation. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[35]  F. Aboitiz,et al.  The alien hand syndrome: classification of forms reported and discussion of a new condition , 2003, Neurological Sciences.

[36]  Elisabeth Pacherie,et al.  The Sense of Control and the Sense of Agency , 2007 .

[37]  Niels Birbaumer,et al.  Brain–computer-interface research: Coming of age , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[38]  Jonathan R Wolpaw,et al.  Brain–computer interface systems: progress and prospects , 2007, Expert review of medical devices.

[39]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see , 1998, Nature.

[40]  Miguel A. L. Nicolelis,et al.  Brain–machine interfaces: past, present and future , 2006, Trends in Neurosciences.

[41]  Peter Carruthers,et al.  The illusion of conscious will , 2007, Synthese.

[42]  D. Geschwind,et al.  Alien hand syndrome , 1995, Neurology.

[43]  B. Allison,et al.  The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders’ Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing , 2011, Neuroethics.

[44]  Clelia Marchetti Sergio Della Sala.  Disentangling the Alien and Anarchic Hand , 1998 .

[45]  R. Andrew Chambers,et al.  Network Modeling of Adult Neurogenesis: Shifting Rates of Neuronal Turnover Optimally Gears Network Learning according to Novelty Gradient , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[46]  J. Bargh,et al.  The Automaticity of Social Life , 2006, Current directions in psychological science.

[47]  S. Gielen,et al.  The brain–computer interface cycle , 2009, Journal of neural engineering.

[48]  C. Neuper,et al.  Combining Brain–Computer Interfaces and Assistive Technologies: State-of-the-Art and Challenges , 2010, Front. Neurosci..

[49]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Abnormalities in the awareness of action , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[50]  P. Haggard,et al.  Awareness of action: Inference and prediction , 2008, Consciousness and Cognition.

[51]  Willem F. G. Haselager,et al.  BCI and a User’s Judgment of Agency , 2014 .

[52]  S. Gallagher.  Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[53]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces: Revolutionizing Human-Computer Interaction , 2013 .

[54]  Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.  Lessons from Libet , 2010 .