↓ Skip to main content

Barking up the wrong free: readiness potentials reflect processes independent of conscious will

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
Title
Barking up the wrong free: readiness potentials reflect processes independent of conscious will
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, March 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00221-013-3479-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Schlegel, Prescott Alexander, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Adina Roskies, Peter U. Tse, Thalia Wheatley

Abstract

In the early 1980s, Libet found that a readiness potential (RP) over central scalp locations begins on average several hundred milliseconds before the reported time of awareness of willing to move (W). Haggard and Eimer Exp Brain Res 126(1):128-133, (1999) later found no correlation between the timing of the RP and W, suggesting that the RP does not reflect processes causal of W. However, they did find a positive correlation between the onset of the lateralized readiness potential (LRP) and W, suggesting that the LRP might reflect processes causal of W. Here, we report a failure to replicate Haggard and Eimer's LRP finding with a larger group of participants and several variations of their analytical method. Although we did find a between-subject correlation in just one of 12 related analyses of the LRP, we crucially found no within-subject covariation between LRP onset and W. These results suggest that the RP and LRP reflect processes independent of will and consciousness. This conclusion has significant implications for our understanding of the neural basis of motor action and potentially for arguments about free will and the causal role of consciousness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Turkey 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 113 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 19%
Researcher 23 19%
Student > Master 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 5%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 17 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 38%
Neuroscience 18 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Philosophy 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 22 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,296,227
of 23,864,690 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#152
of 3,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,115
of 199,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#4
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,864,690 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 199,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.