The boundary between deliberate human agency and involuntary bodily motion represents one of the most perplexing frontiers in cognitive neuroscience, psychiatry, and jurisprudence. Automatism—the execution of complex, seemingly goal-directed motor behaviors in the absence of conscious awareness or volitional control—fundamentally challenges traditional assumptions regarding intent, free will, and subjective responsibility. By interrogating how the human nervous system coordinates intricate physical acts without the intervention of an executive conscious mind, researchers and legal scholars uncover the intricate modularity of human volition.
Automatism
1. Concise Definition
Automatism refers to the spontaneous performance of involuntary, coordinated, and often complex motor or verbal behaviors without conscious awareness, premeditation, or executive self-monitoring during the execution of the act. In clinical neurology and psychiatry, it describes stereotypic or purposeful-looking behavioral sequences that emerge during altered states of consciousness, such as epileptic seizures, sleep parasomnias, or profound dissociative states. In legal jurisprudence, automatism denotes a defense asserting that a defendant performed an alleged criminal act without voluntary motor control (absence of actus reus), thereby negating culpability due to an internal or external disruption of conscious agency.
Beyond transient medical episodes, the construct encompasses a spectrum of phenomena ranging from everyday procedural habituation—such as driving along a familiar route without active reflection—to profound pathological disruptions where an individual interacts with their environment while exhibiting complete post-event amnesia. Across these contexts, the hallmark of automatism is the fundamental dissociation between outward physical performance and introspective executive cognition, demonstrating that sophisticated sensorimotor programs can proceed independently of the reflective self.
2. Etymology & Linguistic Origin
The term automatism derives from the Greek root automatos (αυτοματος), a compound formed from auto- (αυτο-, meaning “self”) and the Indo-European root *men- (which yields matos, meaning “acting,” “willing,” or “thinking”). The original Greek word designated that which occurs spontaneously, of its own accord, or without deliberate external guidance. In classical philosophy, Aristotle used derivatives of the word to denote fortuitous or spontaneous events that lacked an intentional final cause.
The concept transitioned into biomedical and philosophical discourse during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, heavily influenced by René Descartes’ mechanization of animal behavior. Descartes posited that non-human animals were purely mechanical beings—automata—whose actions operated through reflexive bodily mechanisms without an immaterial soul. In the nineteenth century, French psychiatrist Pierre Janet formally incorporated the term into psychopathology through his landmark 1889 doctoral dissertation, L’Automatisme Psychologique, using it to categorize sub-conscious mental processes and dissociative operations that operated beyond personal awareness.
3. Pronunciation & Grammatical Form
In standard international phonetic notation, automatism is pronounced /ɔːˈtɒm.&601;.tɪz.&601;m/ in British English and /ɔːˈtɑː.m&601;.tɪz.&601;m/ in American English. The primary stress falls on the second syllable (“tom”). Morphologically, the term functions as an abstract, non-count noun, formed by appending the noun-forming suffix -ism to automaton or automatic. Variant and related derivatives include the adjective automatoid or automatic, the verb automatize (denoting the gradual conversion of conscious behaviors into habitual routines), the noun automatization, and the plural forms automatisms (which functions as a count noun when referencing specific discrete motor phenomena, such as “epileptic automatisms”).
4. Detailed Conceptual Explanation
To comprehend automatism, one must differentiate between the subjective sensation of intention and the biomechanical execution of physical movement. In ordinary human experience, action is accompanied by what cognitive psychologists term the “sense of agency”—the intrinsic awareness that one is the initiator, controller, and author of one’s physical actions. In states of automatism, this sense of agency is completely extinguished or decoupled from the motor apparatus. The individual moves, speaks, or manipulates objects, yet the neurocognitive architecture responsible for metacognition, prospective planning, and episodic encoding remains functional either partially or not at all. Consequently, automatisms are characterized by retrograde or concurrent amnesia, wherein the individual retains no subjective recollection of executing the behavior once baseline consciousness is restored.
The phenomenological expression of automatisms varies widely according to their underlying neurobiological etiology. They may manifest as simple, primitive stereotypies, such as repetitive lip-smacking, chewing, swallowing, or fumbling with garments, frequently observed during focal impaired awareness seizures. Conversely, automatisms can achieve astonishing structural complexity. During parasomnias, such as sleepwalking (somnambulism), individuals have been documented navigating complex environments, preparing meals, unlocking secure doors, driving automobiles, or engaging in aggressive physical altercations while maintaining slow-wave sleep electroencephalographic patterns across large portions of the cerebral cortex.
From a neuropsychological perspective, automatisms represent the uninhibited release of pre-existing motor programs stored in subcortical and sensorimotor networks. When higher-order prefrontal cortical networks suffer transient hypoperfusion, electrical disruption, or functional dissociation, top-down executive oversight ceases. The basal ganglia, supplementary motor area, and brainstem pattern generators continue to drive organized behavioral repertoires triggered by immediate environmental affordances or spontaneous intrinsic discharges. This architecture explains why an individual in an automatous state can seamlessly step over an obstacle or steer a steering wheel, responding to perceptual stimuli through intact dorsal visual streams while lacking any ventral stream, reflective conscious comprehension of their circumstances.
The legal doctrine surrounding automatism underscores this conceptual boundary. Jurisprudence across common law and civil traditions posits that physical acts must be accompanied by a voluntary will to incur criminal responsibility (the Latin maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea). When an individual experiences an automatism, the physical movements do not qualify as a voluntary act in legal terms. However, courts maintain an intricate boundary between what is termed “sane automatism” (involuntary behavior provoked by an external factor affecting an otherwise healthy mind, such as a concussive blow to the head, an unexpected toxic reaction, or involuntary hypoglycemia) and “insane automatism” (involuntary behavior arising from an internal disease of the mind, such as epilepsy or psychosis), with profoundly divergent outcomes regarding acquittal versus involuntary institutional confinement.
5. Historical Development
The scientific study of automatism evolved through converging investigations in neurology, psychology, and legal reform across the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. During the mid-nineteenth century, English physician John Hughlings Jackson revolutionized neurology by proposing an evolutionary hierarchy of the central nervous system. Jackson observed that focal temporal lobe seizures frequently resulted in “mental automatisms,” wherein the temporary dissolution of the highest, most recently evolved cerebral centers liberated lower, more primitive sensorimotor mechanisms. His foundational observations established that involuntary, complex behaviors were physiological manifestations of cerebral release rather than conscious demonic or psychiatric delusions.
Concurrently in France, Pierre Janet published his pioneering work L’Automatisme Psychologique (1889), which explored subconscious processes in patients diagnosed with hysteria and somnambulism. Janet categorized automatism into “total automatism” (encompassing the entirety of the personality, as in hypnotic states or fugues) and “partial automatism” (where an isolated subconscious idea or motor pattern executes independently of the primary personality, such as in automatic writing). Janet’s work deeply influenced Sigmund Freud’s early concepts of the unconscious, although Freud later shifted his focus away from dissociation toward dynamic conflict and repression.
The legal conceptualization of automatism underwent major formalization in the mid-twentieth century through prominent British case law. The landmark ruling in Bratty v. Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963) established the standard common-law definition of automatism as “an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing.” This judicial precedent laid the groundwork for distinguishing between sane and insane automatism, forcing forensic psychiatry to develop rigorous empirical methods to verify genuine states of automatism against deliberate malingering.
6. Theoretical Foundations
The phenomenon of automatism is elucidated through several competing yet complementary theoretical frameworks spanning neurobiology, cognitive science, and psychoanalytic theory. Foremost among modern models is the Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT) developed by Stanislas Dehaene and Jean-Pierre Changeux. GNWT posits that conscious awareness arises only when sensory information is broadcast widely across long-range frontoparietal networks, enabling diverse specialized brain modules to synchronize. In automatism, sensory inputs and modular motor programs function in isolation or within local subcortical circuits without gaining access to this global workspace. Consequently, complex behaviors are initiated, sustained, and guided by sensory feedback without achieving global integration, precluding conscious experience and memory formation.
A parallel paradigm stems from dual-process cognitive theories, such as those popularized by Daniel Kahneman and Jonathan Evans. These frameworks bifurcate cognitive processing into System 1 (fast, automatic, unconscious, low-effort, and rigid) and System 2 (slow, deliberative, conscious, high-effort, and flexible). Everyday human functioning relies heavily on adaptive, healthy automatization: skills such as playing a musical instrument, touch typing, or shifting automotive gears migrate from System 2 to System 1 through repeated practice. Pathological automatism, within this framework, represents the absolute decoupling of System 1 from System 2 oversight, allowing autonomous procedural scripts to run entirely unchecked by conscious judgment or context evaluation.
In dissociation theory, rooted in Janet’s original insights and modernized by contemporary trauma researchers, automatism is interpreted through the lens of structural dissociation. Under overwhelming traumatic stress, severe pain, or extreme sleep deprivation, the integrative capacity of the self-system fractures. Subsystems of personality or isolated action patterns break away from executive control, executing survival-oriented or repetitive behavioral routines autonomously. This structural view explains why individuals suffering from acute stress disorder or dissociative identity states may engage in prolonged, complex sequences of motor activity while reporting a complete sense of depersonalization, derealization, or amnesia.
7. Key Components, Types & Dimensions
Automatisms can be systematically classified according to their underlying etiology, behavioral characteristics, and clinical presentation:
- Epileptic Automatisms: Involuntary motor behaviors arising during or immediately following an epileptic seizure (ictal or post-ictal states), particularly focal impaired awareness seizures originating in the temporal lobe epilepsy or frontal lobe. Subtypes include:
- Oroalimentary Automatisms: Chewing, lip-smacking, swallowing, tongue movements, and licking.
- Gestural Automatisms: Fumbling with clothes, buttoning and unbuttoning, tapping, or moving objects aimlessly.
- Hyperkinetic Automatisms: Violent, large-amplitude motor behaviors such as pelvic thrusting, pedaling, or flailing, typical of nocturnal frontal lobe seizures.
- Verbal/Vocal Automatisms: Incoherent mumbling, repetitive vocalizations, or the repetition of stereotyped phrases.
- Parasomnic Automatisms: Complex behaviors emerging from non-rapid eye movement (NREM) slow-wave sleep disruptions, involving dissociated brain states where motor cortex activity awakens while frontoparietal networks remain asleep. Examples include somnambulism (sleepwalking), sleep-related eating disorder, and sexsomnia.
- Psychogenic / Dissociative Automatisms: Motor manifestations occurring secondary to psychiatric disorders, acute psychological trauma, or severe conversion states, characterized by complex, theatrical, or culturally shaped behaviors occurring outside conscious awareness.
- Substance-Induced & Metabolic Automatisms: Involuntary behavioral patterns induced by exogenous neurotoxins, severe hypoglycemia in insulin-dependent diabetics, pathological alcohol intoxication, or sedative-hypnotic medications (such as zolpidem).
- Sane vs. Insane Automatism (Jurisprudential Distinction):
- Sane Automatism: Involuntary behavior triggered by an acute, transient external factor (e.g., severe physical trauma, involuntary administration of drugs, reflex shock). Successful pleading yields complete acquittal.
- Insane Automatism: Involuntary behavior originating from an internal physiological or mental disease (e.g., epilepsy, arteriosclerosis, neurodegenerative disease). Successful pleading typically results in a verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity,” carrying mandatory or discretionary psychiatric detention.
8. Examples & Illustrative Cases
Real-world manifestations of automatism highlight both its clinical complexity and its profound legal ramifications. A classic clinical presentation occurs in individuals with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. During an ictal episode lasting ninety seconds, a patient engaged in conversation may suddenly stop speaking, develop a blank, vacant gaze, and continuously swallow while fumbling with their shirt buttons. If a bystander attempts to restrain their hands, the patient may push back vigorously with uncoordinated resistance. Within minutes, the seizure ceases, leaving the patient temporarily disoriented and entirely amnesic regarding the fumbling or the resistance.
A landmark legal case illustrating the reality of parasomnic automatism is the Canadian trial of R. v. Parks (1992). Kenneth Parks fell asleep while watching television, then rose while in a state of somnambulism, entered his car, drove twenty-three kilometers across town, navigated multiple traffic lights, and violently assaulted his parents-in-law, killing his mother-in-law. Immediately following the incident, Parks walked directly to a nearby police station in a state of bewilderment, unaware that he had severed several tendons in his own hands during the assault. Extensive polysomnographic recordings, combined with family histories of profound parasomnias and unanimous neurological testimony, confirmed that Parks was in a profound state of non-REM sleepwalking throughout the entire episode. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld an absolute acquittal on the grounds of sane automatism, concluding that his actions were involuntary and that he lacked an internal “disease of the mind.”
Another illustrative case involves metabolic automatisms secondary to severe hypoglycemia. An insulin-dependent diabetic individual who experiences an unperceived plummet in blood glucose levels may enter a neuroglycopenic state. In this condition, the higher cortical centers are starved of energetic substrates, leading to erratic, confused, or combative behavior. The individual might enter their vehicle and drive erratically, failing to respond to sirens or environmental hazards. Upon medical intervention and intravenous glucose administration, cognitive orientation is instantly restored, accompanied by a complete absence of memory for the dangerous driving sequence.
9. Measurement & Assessment
The forensic and clinical evaluation of automatism requires rigorous, multidisciplinary diagnostic procedures to distinguish genuine neurocognitive disruptions from malingering, voluntary intoxication, or conscious criminal behavior. No single psychological inventory can definitively prove an automatism retroactively; assessment relies on objective physiological testing combined with comprehensive biographical and collateral reconstruction.
The standard clinical assessment protocol encompasses:
- Continuous Video-Electroencephalography (vEEG): The gold standard for detecting epileptogenic automatisms. Extended multi-day inpatient vEEG monitoring captures baseline electrophysiological activity and spontaneous ictal events, correlating abnormal cortical spike-and-wave discharges precisely with captured physical automatisms.
- Overnight Polysomnography (PSG): Indispensable for evaluating suspected sleep parasomnias. Multichannel PSG records electroencephalography, electrooculography, electromyography, and respiratory parameters. When investigating parasomnias such as sleepwalking or sexsomnia, split-screen video-PSG demonstrates persistent high-voltage slow-wave activity (delta sleep) despite full motor arousal.
- Neuroimaging Modalities: High-resolution Structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is utilized to identify focal brain pathology, such as hippocampal sclerosis, cavernous malformations, cortical dysplasias, or frontal lobe tumors that can act as epileptogenic foci triggering automatous states. Functional neuroimaging, such as Positron Emission Tomography (PET) or ictal Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT), identifies localized hypometabolism or hyperperfusion.
- Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation: Formal psychometric testing assesses baseline intellectual functioning, executive function, frontal lobe inhibitory control, and memory integrity. Standardized instruments to detect malingering—such as the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) or the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS)—are systematically administered to assess whether claims of amnesia and loss of control are feigned.
- Collateral Witness Corroboration: Crucial to establishing the credibility of an automatous episode. Forensic evaluators analyze whether the individual exhibited a vacant, unresponsive facial affect during the event, whether they engaged in senseless, purposeless movements, whether they made attempts to conceal their actions afterward, and whether immediate post-event behavior indicated genuine cognitive confusion.
10. Applications & Practical Significance
The practical significance of automatism reverberates across criminal law, clinical medicine, occupational safety, and artificial intelligence design. In jurisprudence, understanding automatism is vital for preserving the moral integrity of criminal justice systems. Punishing an individual for bodily movements over which their conscious will had no control violates fundamental human rights and legal tenets of personal accountability. Accurately diagnosing sane versus insane automatism determines whether a defendant receives an unconditional acquittal, court-mandated inpatient psychiatric rehabilitation, or punitive incarceration.
In clinical neurology and general medical practice, the recognition of subtle automatisms is critical for early diagnosis and life-saving intervention. Patients who experience transient “blackouts” accompanied by subtle automatisms are frequently misdiagnosed with psychiatric panic disorders, transient ischemic attacks, or borderline personality states. Correct identification of temporal lobe or frontal lobe epilepsy allows for targeted pharmacological intervention with anti-seizure medications (such as carbamazepine, lamotrigine, or levetiracetam) or curative neurosurgical resection, thereby preventing sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) and disabling motor vehicle accidents.
In human-factors engineering and occupational ergonomics, the study of healthy procedural automatisms informs cockpit and machinery interface design. When humans perform highly practiced tasks under acute stress or mental exhaustion, they revert to automated behavioral scripts, often committing “capture errors”—where an automated habit overrides an intended, novel action. Engineers design safety interlocks, auditory alarms, and complex procedural sequences specifically to interrupt runaway behavioral automatisms in critical environments such as commercial aviation, nuclear power plants, and surgical suites.
11. Research & Empirical Evidence
Modern empirical research into automatism relies on advanced functional neuroimaging, intracerebral stereotactic EEG (sEEG), and computational neuroscience. Pioneering work by neuroscientist Benjamin Libet in the 1980s sparked decades of investigation into the temporal relationship between conscious intention and motor execution. Libet demonstrated that a distinct electrical brain potential—the readiness potential (Bereitschaftspotential)—originating in the supplementary motor area precedes the conscious awareness of the “decision” to move by several hundred milliseconds. While Libet’s findings ignited philosophical controversy regarding the existence of free will, subsequent empirical work by researchers such as Patrick Haggard has clarified that volitional action relies on continuous, bidirectionally coordinated networks between the prefrontal cortex, the supplementary motor area, and the parietal cortex. Automatism represents the breakdown of this precise network coordination.
In the domain of sleep medicine, research led by Claudio Bassetti, Guy Leschziner, and colleagues has illuminated the phenomenon of “state dissociation.” Historically, sleep and wakefulness were considered mutually exclusive global brain states. Contemporary empirical evidence utilizing high-density EEG and intracerebral recordings demonstrates that sleep is a localized, heterogeneous phenomenon. During parasomnic automatisms, the motor and premotor cortices exhibit typical wakeful, low-amplitude fast frequencies, while the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, and hippocampus remain enveloped in deep, non-REM delta oscillations. This neurobiological dissociation explains how an individual can physically execute complex, goal-oriented motor sequences while remaining biochemically and functionally asleep.
Epileptology research employing stereotactic intracranial recordings during presurgical evaluations has mapped the precise anatomic circuits that generate specific automatisms. Studies conducted at institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic and the Grenoble University Hospital demonstrate that automatisms involving emotional vocalizations and motor restlessness originate predominantly in the anterior insula and orbitofrontal cortex, whereas classic gestural and oroalimentary automatisms require the propagation of epileptiform discharges into the amygdalohippocampal complex and subcortical basal ganglia circuits, providing concrete empirical proof that specific automatisms map onto distinct neural architectures.
12. Cultural & Cross-Cultural Considerations
Cultural norms and contextual frameworks heavily influence how automatisms are interpreted, expressed, and managed across different global populations. In Western biomedical frameworks, involuntary motor behaviors accompanied by altered consciousness are almost universally categorized through somatic or psychological nosologies (e.g., epilepsy, parasomnia, dissociation). However, in many non-Western, indigenous, and traditional cultural settings, identical behavioral manifestations are often interpreted as transpersonal experiences, divine mediumship, ancestral visitation, or spiritual possession.
Cross-cultural psychiatry identifies numerous culture-bound syndromes characterized by classic automatous features. For example, in parts of Southeast Asia, the condition known as latah is marked by extreme startle-induced automatisms, wherein affected individuals involuntarily mimic the gestures or speech of bystanders (echopraxia and echolalia) or execute immediate, uninhibited commands without personal volition. Similar dissociative motor phenomena are documented in the Arctic (piblokto) and across parts of Southern Africa and Latin America. In these cultural contexts, automatisms are integrated into sacred social rituals, and individuals exhibiting them may be elevated to shamanic or prophetic roles rather than stigmatized or subjected to neurological confinement.
Furthermore, cultural context affects the legal viability of an automatism defense. While Anglo-American common-law jurisdictions adhere to rigorous medicalized standards requiring verifiable physical or psychiatric etiology, legal systems in other regions may demonstrate greater or lesser institutional tolerance for claims of spontaneous dissociation or altered consciousness, often influenced by prevailing religious or customary beliefs regarding human agency and spiritual influence.
13. Criticisms, Debates & Limitations
The construct of automatism remains the subject of intense controversy, legal debate, and scientific skepticism. The foremost critique centers on the profound vulnerability of the automatism defense to fabricated claims and forensic malingering. Because states of automatism are inherently episodic, fleeting, and followed by amnesia, defendants accused of heinous crimes—such as homicides, sexual assaults, or vehicular manslaughter—frequently claim they had “no memory” of the event and acted purely as an automaton. Distinguishing genuine, neurochemically driven automatisms from retroactive memory loss due to voluntary alcohol consumption or opportunistic deception remains a persistent challenge for forensic experts.
A major legal and conceptual limitation lies in the arbitrary and archaic distinction between “sane” and “insane” automatism. Legal scholars widely criticize the judicial doctrine emerging from English case law, which categorizes non-mental medical conditions like epilepsy, sleep disorders, and cerebral arteriosclerosis as “diseases of the mind” simply because the source of the involuntary act is internal rather than external. This creates a recognized legal paradox: a person who commits an involuntary violent act during an epileptic seizure is technically classed under the “insane automatism” framework, subjecting them to stigmatizing insanity verdicts and potential indefinite institutionalization, whereas someone whose involuntary behavior was triggered by an external concussion is granted absolute acquittal.
In cognitive science, debate persists regarding whether complex behaviors executed during an automatism can ever truly be devoid of mental content or goal-directed intentionality. Some philosophers of mind argue that navigating a vehicle, striking a human being with a weapon, or foraging for food requires active perceptual-motor intentionality. They argue that calling these actions “automatisms” conflates the lack of conscious, episodic memory with a total lack of subjective awareness during the moment of execution. Under this view, an individual in an automatous state may possess momentary, fleeting consciousness and intent, even if the neurobiological machinery to consolidate that experience into permanent memory is completely nonfunctional.
14. Related Terms & Distinctions
Understanding automatism requires delineating it from several related neurological, psychiatric, and legal constructs:
- Automatism vs. Reflex: A reflex is an involuntary, stereotyped, and immediate motor response to a specific sensory stimulus mediated primarily through simple spinal or brainstem arcs (e.g., the patellar tendon reflex). Automatism involves far more complex, sequential, and organized behaviors that mimic intentional actions and depend on broader subcortical and cortical circuits.
- Automatism vs. Insanity: Under legal definitions, an insanity defense (such as the M’Naghten rules) concedes that the defendant performed a voluntary act, but argues that due to a mental disease, they did not understand the nature and quality of the act, or did not know it was wrong. Automatism denies the existence of a voluntary act entirely (denying actus reus).
- Automatism vs. Catatonia: Catatonia is a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome characterized by motor abnormalities such as stupor, catalepsy, waxy flexibility, and negativism. While catatonic patients may occasionally exhibit automatic obedience or stereotypies, their condition is an enduring behavioral state characterized by profound motor inhibition or purposeless excitement, distinct from episodic automatisms.
- Automatism vs. Compulsion: Compulsions (as seen in obsessive-compulsive disorder) are repetitive, purposeful behaviors performed in conscious response to an obsession or according to rigid rules. The individual is fully aware of performing the act and feels conscious distress, retaining both memory and intentional agency, which are absent in true automatism.
- Automatism vs. Dissociative Fugue: Dissociative fugue involves reversible amnesia for personal identity accompanied by unexpected, purposeful travel away from home. Although complex and dissociative, actions during a fugue state involve intact executive consciousness and decision-making regarding daily survival, lacking the stereotyped motor detachment of acute automatisms.
15. Summary / Key Takeaways
Automatism encapsulates the profound phenomenon wherein human beings execute intricate, coordinated motor behaviors completely detached from conscious will, executive reflection, and episodic memory. Spanning a diverse spectrum from benign procedural motor habits to dramatic medical manifestations in temporal lobe epilepsy, non-REM parasomnias, and metabolic disruptions, automatism illustrates that conscious control is not an indispensable prerequisite for complex motor coordination.
The study of automatism necessitates careful forensic and clinical discernment. While neuroimaging and polysomnography have clarified the localized neural dissociations that enable bodies to act while executive networks sleep or seize, criminal justice systems continue to grapple with the delicate line between involuntary bodily motion and personal moral culpability. Ultimately, automatism serves as a powerful window into the multi-layered modularity of the human brain, illustrating the vital distinction between moving the body and intending to move.
References
- Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J. P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70(2), 200–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018
- Haggard, P. (2008). Human volition: Towards a neuroscience of will. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 934–946. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2497
- Janet, P. (1889). L’automatisme psychologique: Essai de psychologie expérimentale sur les formes inférieures de l’activité humaine. Felix Alcan.
- Leschziner, G. D. (2014). Parasomnias: A practical approach. Practical Neurology, 14(4), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2013-000788
- Tassinari, C. A., Rubboli, G., Gardella, E., Cantalupo, G., Calandra-Buonaura, G., Vedovello, M., & Meletti, S. (2005). Central pattern generators for a common semiology in partial seizures and parasomnias. Epilepsia, 46(s6), 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2005.00283.x