How does it really feel to act together? : Shared emotions and the phenomenology of we-agency

Research on the phenomenology of agency for joint action has so far focused on the sense of agency and control in joint action, leaving aside questions on how it feels to act together. This paper tries to fill this gap in a way consistent with the existing theories of joint action and shared emotion. We first reconstruct Pacherie’s (Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13, 25–46, 2014) account on the phenomenology of agency for joint action, pointing out its two problems, namely (1) the necessary trade-off between the sense of self- and we-agency; and (2) the lack of affective phenomenology of joint action in general. After elaborating on these criticisms based on our theory of shared emotion, we substantiate the second criticism by discussing different mechanisms of shared affect—feelings and emotions—that are present in typical joint actions. We show that our account improves on Pacherie’s, first by introducing our agentive model of we-agency to overcome her unnecessary dichotomy between a sense of self- and we-agency, and then by suggesting that the mechanisms of shared affect enhance not only the predictability of other agents’ actions as Pacherie highlights, but also an agentive sense of we-agency that emerges from shared emotions experienced in the course and consequence of joint action.Peer reviewe

Brain lesion contrast in MR imaging. Dependence on field strength and concentration of gadodiamide injection in patients and phantoms

PURPOSE: To compare the contrast effects of gadodiamide injection at 0.3 and at 1.5 T, at different concentrations in phantoms, and to correlate the results to clinical doses used for examining brain lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Gel phantoms with T1 and T2 corresponding to brain gray matter were doped with different concentrations of gadodiamide injection and examined with T1-weighted sequences. Two different sets of phantoms were used, one for 0.3 T and one for 1.5 T. To express contrast, a quotient (RATIOphantom) between signals in each tube with gadodiamide injection and in the one without it was calculated. A corresponding quotient (RATIOpatient) between signals in brain metastases and in gray matter was calculated in 16 patients examined at 0.3 T (0.1 and 0.3 mmol Gd/kg b.w.) and in 5 patients examined at 1.5 T (0.1 mmol Gd/kg b.w.). RESULTS: Maximum RATIOphantom and RATIOpatient were more than 50% higher at 1.5 T than at 0.3 T at equal concentrations using heavily T1-weighted sequences. The use of SE TR/TE 600/30 instead of 400/25 reduced the contrast effect 15-45% depending on concentration. Comparing RATIOpatient to RATIOphantom suggests that the maximum T1 effect of Gd contrast media occurs at higher doses than in current clinical use, as at 0.1 mmol/kg b.w. we achieved 38% (0.3 T) and 56% (1.5 T) of the maximum phantoms. At 0.3 mmol/kg b.w. we achieved 63% (0.3 T) of the theoretical maximum. CONCLUSION: The contrast effect of Gd contrast media is higher at 1.5 T than at 0.3 T. Higher doses than presently used might prove useful especially at lower field strengths where the contrast effect of Gd is less pronounced. Heavy T1-weighting is also important