Reply to Deecke and Soekadar: Do conventional readiness potentials reflect true volitionality?

  • Haynes J
  • Schultze-Kraft M
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We would like to thank Deecke and Soekadar (1) for their insightful comments on our paper (2). We agree that the voluntary movements in our study were not fully unconstrained. A green light was used to indicate to the participant that a trial had started. This indeed raises the question whether our results generalize to movements without external cueing. Please note that, in our study, the green light is not a response trigger. It indicates the onset of a self-timed waiting period that is followed by an open-ended period during which movements could be freely made. In contrast to many studies on the readiness potential (RP), our study did not require participants to move within a specific time. Thus, … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: johndylan.haynes{at}gmail.com. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Haynes, J.-D., & Schultze-Kraft, M. (2016). Reply to Deecke and Soekadar: Do conventional readiness potentials reflect true volitionality? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(21). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604661113

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free