Stimuli that have been generated by a person's own willed motor actions generally elicit a suppressed electrophysiological, as well as phenomenological, response compared with identical stimuli that have been externally generated. This well-studied phenomenon, known as sensory attenuation, has mostly been studied by comparing ERPs evoked by self-initiated and externally generated sounds. However, most studies have assumed a uniform action–effect contingency, in which a motor action leads to a resulting sensation 100% of the time. In this study, we investigated the effect of manipulating the probability of action–effect contingencies on the sensory attenuation effect. In Experiment 1, participants watched a moving, marked tickertape while EEG was recorded. In the full-contingency (FC) condition, participants chose whether to press a button by a certain mark on the tickertape. If a button press had not occurred by the mark, a sound would be played a second later 100% of the time. If the button was pressed before the mark, the sound was not played. In the no-contingency (NC) condition, participants observed the same tickertape; in contrast, however, if participants did not press the button by the mark, a sound would occur only 50% of the time (NC-inaction). Furthermore, in the NC condition, if a participant pressed the button before the mark, a sound would also play 50% of the time (NC-action). In Experiment 2, the design was identical, except that a willed action (as opposed to a willed inaction) triggered the sound in the FC condition. The results were consistent across the two experiments: Although there were no differences in N1 amplitude between conditions, the amplitude of the Tb and P2 components were smaller in the FC condition compared with the NC-inaction condition, and the amplitude of the P2 component was also smaller in the FC condition compared with the NC-action condition. The results suggest that the effect of contingency on electrophysiological indices of sensory attenuation may be indexed primarily by the Tb and P2 components, rather than the N1 component which is most commonly studied.

Sensory suppression refers to the phenomenon that sensory input generated by our own actions, such as moving a finger to press a button to hear a tone, elicits smaller neural responses than sensory input generated by external agents. This observation is usually explained via the internal forward model in which an efference copy of the motor command is used to compute a corollary discharge, which acts to suppress sensory input. However, because moving a finger to press a button is accompanied by neural processes involved in preparing and performing the action, it is unclear whether sensory suppression is the result of movement planning, movement execution, or both. To investigate this, in two experiments, we compared ERPs to self-generated tones that were produced by voluntary, semivoluntary, or involuntary button-presses, with externally generated tones that were produced by a computer. In Experiment 1, the semivoluntary and involuntary button-presses were initiated by the participant or experimenter, respectively, by electrically stimulating the median nerve in the participant's forearm, and in Experiment 2, by applying manual force to the participant's finger. We found that tones produced by voluntary button-presses elicited a smaller N1 component of the ERP than externally generated tones. This is known as N1-suppression. However, tones produced by semivoluntary and involuntary button-presses did not yield significant N1-suppression. We also found that the magnitude of N1-suppression linearly decreased across the voluntary, semivoluntary, and involuntary conditions. These results suggest that movement planning is a necessary condition for producing sensory suppression. We conclude that the most parsimonious account of sensory suppression is the internal forward model.