Predictive Mechanisms Are Not Involved the Same Way during Human-Human vs. Human-Machine Interactions: A Review <s> The Sense of Agency during Joint Actions with Other Humans <s> Agency deals with action, self-consciousness, and causality dimensions as a constitutive and pervasive aspect of human experience. The self is not a static entity but most of the time is an acting-self. To be an agent means to be in action and to encounter objects or subjects to interact with. <s> BIB001 </s> Predictive Mechanisms Are Not Involved the Same Way during Human-Human vs. Human-Machine Interactions: A Review <s> The Sense of Agency during Joint Actions with Other Humans <s> Intentional binding is the perceived shortening of the time between a voluntary action and its consequent effect and has been suggested as an implicit measure of agency. This shortening has been linked to processes underlying action preparation and is also affected by post-movement feedback. Intentional binding has been demonstrated in joint action tasks involving two humans, but it is unknown whether it occurs for tasks involving a human working alongside a non-human partner. This experiment investigated the influence of high-level feedback on the experience of agency and whether binding occurs in human–computer joint action settings. Participants were involved in two versions an action task involving another ‘agent’. In one version, two participants (a genuine participant and a confederate) sat side by side, separated by a curtain that prevented vision of the other person. In baseline conditions, both participants were instructed to make a self-paced action and judge the time of the action by reporting the position of a rotating clock-hand on a computer screen. In other baseline conditions, participants judged the time of an auditory tone. In operant conditions, participants made actions and the genuine participant’s action was followed 200 ms later by a tone on every trial. To examine the effect of post-movement information on binding and explicit agency judgments, a colour cue was presented on each trial informing participants about which person’s action caused the tone. In another version of the task, participants were paired with a computer instead of a human co-actor. Post-movement information affected the genuine participant’s explicit agency judgments but had no effect on intentional binding, which always occurred. In the human–computer version, participants never showed binding, even when they explicitly judged that their action had caused the tone. We suggest that human–human partnerships result in the formation of a new ‘we’ agentic identity, but that human–computer partnerships lead to inhibition of the processes that mediate the pre-reflective sense of agency. <s> BIB002 </s> Predictive Mechanisms Are Not Involved the Same Way during Human-Human vs. Human-Machine Interactions: A Review <s> The Sense of Agency during Joint Actions with Other Humans <s> The phenomenology of controlling what one perceives is influenced by a combination of sensory predictions and inferential processes. While it is known that external perturbations can reduce the sense of control over action effects, there have been few studies investigating the impact of intentional co-actors on the sense of control. In three experiments, we investigated how individuals’ judgments of control (JoC) over a moving object were influenced by sharing control with a second person. Participants used joysticks to keep a cursor centered on a moving target either alone or with a co-actor. When both participants’ actions had similar perceptual consequences, JoC ratings were highest when self-generated movements were the only influence on the cursor, while the appearance of sharing control with a second person decreased JoC ratings. By contrast, when participants performed complementary actions with perceptually distinctive consequences, JoC ratings were highest when both participants were able to influence the cursor. The phenomenology of control during joint action is influenced by low-level visuomotor correlations, the presence of competing causal influences, and group-level performance. <s> BIB003 </s> Predictive Mechanisms Are Not Involved the Same Way during Human-Human vs. Human-Machine Interactions: A Review <s> The Sense of Agency during Joint Actions with Other Humans <s> Many studies suggest that individuals are not able to build a sense of we-agency during joint actions with automated artificial systems. We sought to examine whether or not this lack of sense of control was linked with individuals' inability to represent automaton-generated action into their own cognitive system. Indeed, during human interactions, we automatically represent our partner's actions in our own sensorimotor system. This might sustain our capacity to build a sense of we-agency over our partner-generated actions. However, to our knowledge, no studies have investigated the potential relation between our ability to use our sensorimotor system to represent a partner's action and we-agency. Our approach consisted in performing a pilot study coupling together a Simon target detection task wherein RTs served as an index of action co-representation and an implicit measure of one's sense of agency as indicated by intentional binding phenomenon. The preliminary observations suggested that individuals could represent other-generated action and have a sense of agency over these actions provided that their partner was another human and not an artificial automated system. <s> BIB004
Numerous authors have tried to understand how the actions of others could affect one's own sense of control during joint actions (i.e., joint agency) (Obhi and Hall, 2011a,b; BIB003 BIB004 . In Obhi and Hall (2011a)'s study, paired participants were asked to act jointly by pressing a spacebar at will. In the first experiment, whenever one person pressed the spacebar first, the other had to also press the spacebar as soon as possible. The first key press triggered a tone 200 ms later. In this setting, both participants co-intended to trigger the sensory consequence. In the second experiment, one participant was instructed to press a spacebar at the time of his or her choice while the other had to press the spacebar as soon as possible after the initiator's key press. In this context, the sensory consequence was triggered by a personal intention. In both experiments, participants were asked to report their feeling of causal responsibility (i.e., a subjective experience of agency) using a percentage scale and also to judge the onset time of the first key press or the onset of the tone. Interestingly, in both experiments, although only the initiator reported a reliable feeling of causal responsibility, both individuals demonstrated IB. This finding has been explained by the spontaneous and pre-reflexive "we identity" formation occuring when two humans cooperate  BIB001 . This new agentive identity leads individuals to experience agency as soon as one of the two had performed a goal-directed action. In a second study, BIB002 placed participants in a room with a confederate (presented as a genuine participant), separated by a curtain. In the operant condition, participants were asked to tap the touchpad at the time of their choice, which triggered a tone after 200 ms. In the action alone condition, participants were asked to tap the touchpad at will, but their action was not followed by a tone. In the tone alone condition, a tone was externally generated. Participants thought the confederate could also cause the tone if they had tapped the touchpad before them but in fact, it was always the naïve participant who was performing the action triggering the tone. After each trial, a randomized false feedback about the initiator's identity was given to the participants (self, other or indistinguishable). Participants had to judge the onset time of their own action or the onset time of the tone with the help of a clock and to explicitly report their belief about who had caused the tone. Data showed that when the participants' action triggered an effect, the onset time of the action was perceived later than it was when the action did not cause any effect. Similarly, the perceived onset time of the tone in the operant condition was perceived differently from the tone alone condition. Even when they were convinced the confederate's action had caused the tone, they always demonstrated IB that was indistinguishable from the binding they showed when they believed that their own action had caused the sensory effect. The authors interpreted this phenomenon in terms of "we identity": when two human partners are involved in a task together, a "we" agentic identity would be automatically formed, leading individuals to feel a sense of agency for actions that have been triggered by their partner, even if visual information concerning the action of the other is missing. However, in Obhi and Hall (2011b)'s study it was always the naïve participant who caused the tone. Indeed, participants were induced the false belief that their partner could also trigger the sensory effect if they had tapped a touchpad before them. Hence, these findings can be explained in terms of the predictive model of action. Regardless of participants' thoughts, they always performed the key press so that motoric information was always available. In addition, participants had to judge the onset of their own action and not the supposed onset of the action of the partner. Thus, the IB effect found might reflect the sense of selfagency of the participant himself or herself, which arises from the match between the predicted state (through the forward model) and the estimate actual state. Finally, Dewey et al. (2014, experiments 2 and 3) have shown that in a joint task where participants perform complementary actions, their judgments of control were not just based on the effect predictability of their own actions but is also influenced by the amount of control exhibited by the team as a whole. In the study, the authors asked paired participants to track a target moving on a horizontal axis on a screen with a joystick (each participant had her or his own joystick). Each participant could control only one specific direction of the tracker (to the right or to the left) so that the contributions of both agents were required to succeed on the task. On some trials, either one or both of the participants' joysticks were turned off and/or noisy perturbations were induced on the joystick motion. The participants' judgments of control where highest when both joysticks were activated and the noise was turned off. This could be interpreted either as evidence that in these joint tasks participants evaluate their control from the perspective of the team rather than from their own egocentric perspective (joint control hypothesis) or as evidence of a self-serving bias, where participants attribute more control to themselves when the action is successful. To adjudicate between these two possibilities, Dewey et al repeated the experiment, but asked participants to rate their own control on half of the trials and their partner's control on the other half of the trials. Results indicated that both self and other judgments were highest in the condition where the two joysticks were activated and the noise was off. This indicates that collaborative actions, where co-agents make complementary contributions and the action effects produced by the partner are predictable, contribute to a sense of "we-ness, " where participants experience a shared sense of control over the joint task BIB003 . In addition, recent investigations have shown that during joint actions where participants had asymmetric roles, being a leader or a follower did not modulate the individual's judgements of control provided that the final goal is equally shared and not imposed by the leader (van der Wel, 2015) . These data support the idea that during joint actions, a we-mode is running so that individual actions are turned into common actions  BIB001 . Indeed, in this particular context of joint actions, the sense of control does not rely solely on the specific contributions of each individual but rather on the group performance. This pattern of results is also found when the joint task is more conceptual and does not involve a common object to act on. Indeed, BIB004 's added a temporal delay estimation task to the Simon task. Moreover, in addition to the two-choice, the individual go-nogo and human joint gonogo conditions, there was a human observation condition in which the participants had to passively observe the confederate performing the Simon task. Each accurate target detection made by the confederate or by the participants triggered a tone after a random delay. The participants had to report orally the perceived delay between the onset of the detection and the onset of the tone. The authors found that the participants made shorter temporal estimations when they had to judge the confederate-generated action in the human joint go-nogo condition compared to when they had to judge the very same action performed in the human observation condition. This brings additional support to the hypothesis that being engaged in a social collaboration with a partner can enhance the observer's sense of agency compared to the mere passive observation. The predictive coding account allows us to understand how individuals can have a sense of agency for actions that have been realized by a partner. Nonetheless, it seems that similar mechanisms operate during the mere passive observation of others, maybe in a lesser extent.