Elsevier

Consciousness and Cognition

Volume 65, October 2018, Pages 1-26
Consciousness and Cognition

Libet’s experiment: A complex replication

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.07.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Libet’s experiment was replicated respecting its complexity.

  • The original outcomes were generally replicated with some differences.

  • The report of the urge to move does not always precede the movement onset.

  • The readiness potential precedes the reported time of the urge to move.

  • There is a large interindividual variability in the introspective reports.

Abstract

Libet’s experiment is an influential classical study, which does not stop provoking heated debates. However, a full-scale replication has not been carried out to this day. Libet-style studies have usually focused on isolated ideas and concepts and never on the whole experiment in all its complexity. This paper presents detailed methodological description and results of a complex replication study. The methodology follows Libet’s directions closely in most cases; when it does not, the differences are described and elaborated. The results replicate Libet’s key findings, but substantial differences were found in some of the results’ categories, such as the introspective reports or the number of readiness-potentials found. The discussion also addresses some current problems pertaining the methodology of the Libet-style experiments and provides some recommendations based on a detailed process evaluation.

Introduction

Occasionally, it happens in science that a thought-provoking empirical study becomes substantially influential and stimulates decades of follow-up debates and research. Such is the case of a study published by Benjamin Libet and his colleagues more than 30 years ago (Libet, 1985, Libet et al., 1983, Libet et al., 1982). Their publication initiated heated debates concerning its methodology and interpretations between other researchers (e.g. Libet, 1985, Open Peer Commentary; Dennett and Kinsbourne, 1992, Breitmeyer, 2002, Klein, 2002, Pockett, 2002, Klemm, 2010, Papanicolaou, 2017) and Libet himself responded to many of the discussions in published papers and his 2004 monograph (e.g. Libet, 1985, Author’s Response; Haggard and Libet, 2001, Libet, 2004).

Therefore, it comes as no surprise to learn that some of the technical details of said experiment are, methodologically speaking, not perfect (e.g., see the discussion between Gilberto Gomes and Benjamin Libet in Gomes, 1998, Libet, 2000, Gomes, 2002). Hence, one would expect that there would be a large initiative to replicate Libet’s experiment soon after its publication. Nevertheless, the empirical studies replicating Libet’s experiment in some way or another seem to adopt a different approach. Vast majority of these studies substantially modified or simplified the experimental methodology to either provide support for individual counterarguments against Libet’s conclusions (e.g. Keller and Heckhausen, 1990, Trevena and Miller, 2002, Schurger et al., 2012, Verbaarschot et al., 2015) or expand the study using more advanced technology and procedures (for example using an fMRI machine, see Lau et al., 2004, Lau et al., 2006, Soon et al., 2008).

The more recent the studies are, the more they seem to be focused on specific aspects of the original Libet’s experiment. For example, a study made by Danquah, Farrell, and O’Boyle (2008) aimed at the tactile stimulation which Libet used in his “S series” (see Libet et al., 1982, Libet et al., 1983) and showed that the tactile stimuli may be consciously registered with different latency than visual or auditory stimuli.

Trevena and Miller (2002) presented two experiments focused mainly on analyzing a type of event-related potentials called lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs) instead of the classical readiness potentials (RPs) used in Libet’s case. However, these authors modified the original design and ultimately had to admit that the participants‘ introspective reports of the timing of conscious decision to move differed substantially from what was found by other researchers, including Libet, and that some of these W times were reported after the movement was initiated.

Schurger et al. (2012) introduced a modification, which they called “Libetus interruptus“ design, and showed that the early readiness potentials‘ onsets observed by Libet and his team may be caused by spontaneus fluctuations in neural activity occasionally building up to a movement execution. Additionally, the W reports in their case were similar to what Trevena and Miller (2002) found (and thus different from Libet’s original results).

Other studies focused on biases in reporting the introspective impressions in Libet-style experiments (e.g. Pockett and Miller, 2007, Banks and Isham, 2009, Pockett and Purdy, 2011, Dominik et al., 2017). Some of these showed that certain types of introspective reports (especially the reports of the urge to move) are highly susceptible to being distorted due to changes in the experimental situation.

These and other similar studies are extremely informative for isolated aspects of Libet’s experiment. Nevertheless, their experimental designs are usually notably reduced and do not reflect the complexity of Libet’s original study, which suggests that it might prove useful to conduct a complex replication study. That means a study which does not aim to challenge Libet’s results or interpretations, but instead attempts to conduct the original experiment following Libet’s methodological directions as closely as reasonable.

That is the aim of the present paper. Our procedure consisted of four general steps as follows: (1) we familiarized ourselves with Libet’s original methodological papers (Libet et al., 1982, Libet et al., 1983, Libet, 1985), (2) we devised our own technical plan of the experiment following the original directions, (3) we enhanced the design slightly to overcome some of its original methodological limitations and to adjust it to equipment available to us, and finally (4) conducted the experiment including the data analysis. We aim to publish the research data along this paper to allow other researchers to revise an authentic data sample (see Dominik et al., 2018).

One could argue that our study cannot be called a replication in the strictest sense, since we decided to make some changes to the design. While this might certainly be true, in case of such a complex experiment, it is often difficult to balance replicative accuracy and methodological generalizability, ultimately forcing the researchers to make choices between keeping the design intact, but less valid, and improving it so that it is more valid, but less accurately reproduced. In short, while we are aware that modifying the design may lead to changes in the results, we found some modifications necessary, either for technical or for methodological reasons.

Before reading on, we strongly recommend the reader who is not familiar with the details of Libet’s experiment to read the original papers (Libet et al., 1982, Libet et al., 1983, Libet, 1985). While doing so, we should dedicate a few lines to suggest possible reasons why Libet and his team published the experiment in three separate articles. The answer may be that the authors simply wanted to separate different types of conclusions, as the experiment is notably complex (which is evident from the length of this paper). The first study, published by Libet et al. (1982), emphasized the analysis of the readiness-potentials (RPs). They showed, among other findings, what RPs look like before a spontaneous movement compared to pre-planned movement and that it does not occur before a skin stimulus. The second paper, published by Libet et al. (1983), introduced the introspective reports such as the moment of the first conscious urge to move (called “W” as in “wanting”) or the subjective impression of the actual initiation of the movement (called “M” as in “movement”). The authors pointed out that the RP onsets generally precede not only the movement itself, but also the conscious awareness of wanting to move. The third paper (Libet, 1985) contains mainly discussion and further notes on the results, but it also introduces the concept of a conscious veto and suggests that some series in the original experiment were intended to require participants to deliberately veto an intended movement (Libet, 1985, p. 538).

Section snippets

Participants

Originally, Libet worked with 6 participants (5 of them were females). These were all right-handed college students divided into two groups of three. Libet studied the second group a few months after the study of the first group (Libet et al., 1982, Libet et al., 1983).

Our research sample consisted of 8 participants. This increase in sample size is not large, but the number of 8 participants has a rational reason – it allows a complete rotation of three experimental conditions, which could not

EMG onset timing

The EMG onset is relevant for the W, M and P series. In the W and M series, it constitutes the reference point for the EEG onset and the introspective reports. In the P series, we are interested in the comparison of the target point, the mouse click and the EMG onset.

Discussion

This paper aims to replicate the outcomes of Libet et al., 1982, Libet et al., 1983, Libet, 1985 by conducting a study designed to follow the original methodology as closely as possible. The experiment is complex and as our data suggest, its outcomes are substantially dependent on data collection and analysis procedures. In the following six sections, we discuss technical issues and effects of our methodological choices, as well as the implications of our replication and other recent empirical

Limitations

Present study contains several technical limitations, some of which were already mentioned in the previous sections. Here, we will report additional important technical difficulties which may limit our study.

One limitation is a minor flaw in the mean report calculation from the M and W series in the order (O) mode of recall. The flaw is that not all trials in the O mode of recall contained an EMG onset, even though the button was pressed. The estimate might therefore be slightly inaccurate,

Conclusions

Our study’s goal was to replicate Libet’s experiment and to point out some methodological problems obscured by the experiment’s complexity. To our knowledge, a replication as complex as ours was never carried out, and even though we failed to replicate some elements of Libet’s experiment accurately, we find it critical to present our approach and outcomes. We showed some technical issues in both Libet’s methodology and methodology used by later Libet-style experiments. Our data also showed that

Funding

This research was supported by Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic [IGA FF_2017_021].

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Michal Kluka for providing language help and Miroslav Kuba and Jan Kremláček from Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Králové, Charles University for consultations pertaining the ERP analyses.

References (38)

  • S. Pockett

    On subjective back-referral and how long it takes to become conscious of a stimulus: A reinterpretation of Libet’s data

    Consciousness and Cognition

    (2002)
  • S. Pockett et al.

    The rotating spot method of timing subjective events

    Consciousness and Cognition

    (2007)
  • J.A. Trevena et al.

    Cortical movement preparation before and after a conscious decision to move

    Consciousness and Cognition

    (2002)
  • C. Verbaarschot et al.

    Lost in time... the search for intentions and readiness potentials

    Consciousness and Cognition

    (2015)
  • W.P. Banks et al.

    We infer rather than perceive the moment we decided to act

    Psychological Science

    (2009)
  • M. Brass et al.

    To do or not to do: The neural signature of self-control

    The Journal of Neuroscience

    (2007)
  • E.A. Caspar et al.

    “Free will”: Are we all equal? A dynamical perspective of the conscious intention to move

    Neuroscience of Consciousness

    (2016)
  • D.C. Dennett et al.

    Time and the observer: The where and when of consciousness in the brain

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences

    (1992)
  • Dominik, T., Dostál, D., Zielina, M., Šmahaj, J., Sedláčková, Z., & Procházka, R. (2018). EEG Data and Introspective...
  • Cited by (9)

    • Libet's legacy: A primer to the neuroscience of volition

      2024, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
    • What is the intention to move and when does it occur?

      2023, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
    • A meta-analysis of Libet-style experiments

      2021, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      Second, this approach secures best comparability of the meta-analytical results and those reported by Libet et al. (1983). An EMG recognizes the movement onset approximately 60 ms earlier than an apparatus (Dominik et al., 2018a,b). The weighted mean reported delay in the articles included in the present meta-analysis is 63.09 ms (M = 59.73 ms) and the reported delays range between 40.6 ms (Sirigu et al., 2004) and 76.2 ms (Haggard et al., 2002).

    • EEG data and introspective reports from the Libet׳s experiment replication

      2018, Data in Brief
      Citation Excerpt :

      Consecutive sessions were performed about a week apart. The series were organized in the sessions so that the experimental conditions were properly rotated (see Section 2.5, Tables 1 and 2 in our main article [1]). Altogether, seven sessions with each participant took place, while the first session was for training purposes only.

    • Neurotechnology and Health Law

      2023, Casopis Zdravotnickeho Prava a Bioetiky
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text