Free will as a subject of psychophysiological research: methodological aspects
Abstract
Introduction. The experimental study of free will may present methodological difficulties, from defining the research subject to interpreting the obtained results. Depending on the chosen experimental paradigm, its predictive capacity regarding volitional acts and decision-making in study participants can vary substantially – from 550 ms to 10 s before the awareness of intention and the final decision. This complicates the comparison of results and creates interpretation bias, which necessitates the systematization of existing approaches within this review. Aims. This paper provides a review of major experimental paradigms in the study of free will. Theoretical Basis. Psychophysiological paradigms are considered with a focus on recording cerebral activity during spontaneous decision-making using evoked potentials (EEG) and neuroimaging (fMRI); decision-making under direct experimenter influence using invasive (direct electrical stimulation) and non-invasive (transcranial magnetic stimulation) methods; as well as behavioral and cognitive paradigms focusing on the emergence of subjective feelings of free will and a sense of agency during decision-seeking and decision-making. Results. Voluntary actions are initiated by unconscious neural processes preceding intention awareness at different time scales (from milliseconds to seconds). Conscious volitional control is primarily practiced at late stages of decision-making through mechanisms of action correction (vetoing certain actions). The sense of agency arises from integrating sensory, motor, and cognitive signals in the parietal cortex. Subjective free will is constructive in nature and can be modulated through temporal and semantic relationships between actions and their consequences. Conclusion. These findings should be considered for replicating existing experiments and developing qualitatively new methodologies in the study of free will.
Downloads
References
2. Dubrovsky D.I. The problem of free will and modern neuroscience. Zhurnal vysshei nervnoi deyatelnosti im. IP Pavlova = I.P. Pavlov Journal of Higher Nervous Activity. 2017;67(6):739–754. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.7868/S0044467717060089
3. Nagumanova S.F. Neuroscience of Free Will. Vestnik psikhofiziologii = Bulletin of Psychophysiology. 2017;4:42–46. (in Russ.).
4. Lavazza A. Free will and neuroscience: from explaining freedom away to new ways of operationalizing and measuring it. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2016;10:262. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00262
5. Ewusi-Boisvert E., Racine E. A critical review of methodologies and results in recent research on belief in free will. Neuroethics. 2018;11:97–110. DOI: 10.1007/s12152-017-9346-3
6. Libet B. The neural time – factor in perception, volition and free will. Neurophysiology of Consciousness. Birkhäuser Boston. 1993;367–384. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4612-0355-1_22
7. Schultze-Kraft M., Birman D., Rusconi M. et al. The point of no return in vetoing self-initiated movements, The point of no return in vetoing self-initiated movements. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences. 2016;113(4):1080–1085. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1513569112
8. Soon C.S., Brass M., Heinze H.J., Haynes J.D. Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature neuroscience. 2008;11(5):543–545. DOI: 10.1038/nn.2112
9. Bode S., He A.H., Soon C.S. et al. Tracking the Unconscious Generation of Free Decisions Using UItra-High Field fMRI. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(6):e21612. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021612
10. Fried I., Mukamel R., Kreiman G. Internally Generated Preactivation of Single Neurons in Human Medial Frontal Cortex Predicts Volition. Neuron. 2011;69(3):548–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.11.045
11. Desmurget M., Reilly K.T., Richard N. et al. Movement Intention After Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans. Science. 2009;324(5928):811–813. DOI: 10.1126/science.1169896
12. Oliveira F.T.P., Diedrichsen J., Verstynen T. et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation of posterior parietal cortex affects decisions of hand choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010;107(41):17751–17756. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1006223107
13. Haggard P. Conscious intention and motor cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2005;9(6):290–295. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.012
14. Wegner D.M. Précis of the illusion of conscious will. Behavioral and Brain Science. 2004;27(5):649–659. DOI:10.1017/S0140525X04000159
15. Johansson P., Hall L., Sikström S., Olsson A. Failure to Detect Mismatches Between Intention and Outcome in a Simple Decision Task. Science. 2005;310(5745):116–119. DOI: 10.1126/science.1111709
16. Razeev D.N. The problem of free will in the context of neurosci-ence research. Zhurnal vysshei nervnoi deyatelnosti im. IP Pavlova = I.P. Pavlov Journal of Higher Nervous Activity. 2017;67(6):721–727. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.7868/S0044467717060041
17. Razeev D.N. Free will and cognitive mechanism of choice. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Tomsk State University. 2019;(439):110–114. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17223/15617793/439/13
18. Andriyanova N.V., Borodina K.A., Chukanov A.V. et al. The Role of the Number of Values in Solving Problems of Recalling Polysemantic Information. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Psikhologiya = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psy-chology. 2025;15(1):81–102. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.21638/spbu16.2025.105
19. Kornhuber H.H., Deecke L. Changes in the brain potential in voluntary movements and passive movements in man: readiness potential and reafferent potentials. Pflugers Archiv fur die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere. 1965;284:1–17.
20. Kornhuber HH., Deecke L. The will and its brain: An appraisal of reasoned free will. University press of America. 2012.
21. Matsuhashi M., Hallett M. The timing of the conscious intention to move. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2008;28(11):2344–2351. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06525.x
22. Schurger A., Sitt J.D., Dehaene S. An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109(42):E2904-E2913. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1210467109
23. Benabid A.L. Deep brain stimulation for Parkinsons disease. Current Opinion in Neuro-biology. 2003;13(6):696–706. DOI: 10.1016/j.conb.2003.11.001
24. Benabid A.L. What the future holds for deep brain stimulation. Expert Review of Medical Devices. 2007;4(6):895–903. DOI: 10.1586/17434440.4.6.895
25. Odekerken V.J., van Laar T., Staal M.J. et al. Subthalamic nucleus versus globus pallidus bilateral deep brain stimulation for advanced Parkinsons disease (NSTAPS study): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Neurology. 2013;12(1):37–44. DOI: 10.1016/s1474-4422(12)70264-8
26. Glannon W. Neuromodulation, agency and autonomy. Brain topography. 2014;27(1):46–54. DOI: 10.1007/s10548-012-0269-3
27. Baylis F. “I Am Who I Am”: On the Perceived Threats to Personal Identity from Deep Brain Stimulation. Neuroethics. 2013;6(3): 513–526. DOI: 10.1007/s12152-011-9137-1
28. Haggard P., Whitford B. Supplementary motor area provides an efferent signal for sensory suppression. Cognitive Brain Research. 2004;19(1):52–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.018
29. Wegner D.M., Wheatley T. Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will. American Psychologist. 1999;54(7):480–492. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.480
30. Wegner D. M. The illusion of conscious will. MIT press. 2017
31. Gershkovich V.A. The Impact of Misinformation on the Memory of the Choice Made. Vestnik Rossiiskogo gumanitarnogo nauchnogo fonda = Bulletin of the Russian Humanitarian Scientific Foundation. 2015;2:208–217. (in Russ.).
32. Gershkovich V.A., Gaponenko A.V. Talking about what we dont know: manifestation of choice blindness when filling out R. Cattells 16-factor personality questionnaire. Vestnik Yaro-slavskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye nauki = Bulletin of Yaroslavl State University. Humanitarian Sciences Series. 2017;1:76–84. (in Russ.)
33. Gershkovich V.A., Tikhonov R.V., Bystrova E.E., Lvova O.L. The influence of confabulations about the reasons for the choice on the formation of false memories. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Psikhologiya = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology. 2023;13(4):566–585. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.21638/spbu16.2023.409
34. Brass M., Haggard P. The what, when, whether model of intentional action. The Neuroscientist. 2008;14(4):319–325. DOI: 10.1177/1073858408317417
35. Hoffstaedter F., Grefkes C., Zilles K., Eickhoff S.B. The “what” and “when” of self-initiated movements. Cerebral Cortex. 2013;23(3):520–530. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhr391
36. Blagovechtchenski E., Koriakina M., Bartseva K. et al. C.R.A.B.: a gamified paradigm for studying readiness potential. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2025;19:1534412. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2025.1534412
References on translit
-
Copyright (c) 2026 Psychology. Psychophysiology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
