Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 75

Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don’t presuppose the answers. PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 35 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don’t presuppose the answers. Ian Apperly. Brains can tell us more about social c ognition the cognitive basis of “theory of mind” if our methods don’t presuppose the answers. Ian Apperly. What is “Theory of Mind”?.

Download Presentation

Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don’t presuppose the answers.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don’t presuppose the answers.

Ian Apperly


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

Brains can tell us more about social cognitionthe cognitive basis of “theory of mind”ifour methods don’t presuppose the answers.

Ian Apperly


What is theory of mind

What is “Theory of Mind”?

  • “Folk psychology”, “Perspective-taking”, “Social cognition”

  • Essential for everyday social interaction and communication

  • False belief tasks as a paradigm case

  • (e.g., Wimmer & Perner, 1983)

    • These tasks ensure that participant must judge from other person’s point of view


What is theory of mind1

What is “Theory of Mind”?

  • “Folk psychology”, “Perspective-taking”, “Social cognition”

  • Essential for everyday social interaction and communication

  • False belief tasks as a paradigm case

  • (e.g., Wimmer & Perner, 1983)

    • These tasks ensure that participant must judge from other person’s point of view

  • Significant developments from infancy to early childhood

  • Disproportionately impaired in autism and several other

    genetic and psychiatric disorders


What is theory of mind2

What is “Theory of Mind”?

  • “Folk psychology”, “Perspective-taking”, “Social cognition”

  • Essential for everyday social interaction and communication

  • False belief tasks as a paradigm case

  • (e.g., Wimmer & Perner, 1983)

    • These tasks ensure that participant must judge from other person’s point of view

  • Significant developments from infancy to early childhood

  • Disproportionately impaired in autism and several other

    genetic and psychiatric disorders

  • Existent, to a degree, in non-human animals


What is theory of mind3

What is “Theory of Mind”?

  • “Folk psychology”, “Perspective-taking”, “Social cognition”

  • Essential for everyday social interaction and communication

  • False belief tasks as a paradigm case

  • (e.g., Wimmer & Perner, 1983)

    • These tasks ensure that participant must judge from other person’s point of view

  • Significant developments from infancy to early childhood

  • Disproportionately impaired in autism and several other

    genetic and psychiatric disorders

  • Existent, to a degree, in non-human animals

  • Identifiable neural network

Temporo-parietal junction / pSTS

Temporal pole

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

TPJ

TP

Medial view

Lateral view


Theory of mind in adults

Theory of mind in adults?

  • “But don’t adults have a theory of mind……?”


Theory of mind in adults1

Theory of mind in adults?

  • “But don’t adults have a theory of mind……?”

  • Prevailing view:

    • ToM is a set of concepts

    • Researchers should figure out who has them (and where they are in the brain).....

    • ....by seeing who passes false belief tasks

Temporo-parietal junction / pSTS

Temporal pole

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

TPJ

TP

Medial view

Lateral view


Theory of mind in adults2

Theory of mind in adults?

  • “But don’t adults have a theory of mind……?”

  • Prevailing view:

    • ToM is a set of concepts

    • Researchers should figure out who has them (and where they are in the brain).....

    • ....by seeing who passes false belief tasks

  • Problems with this view:

    • No cognitive account of ToM in adults

    • Severe limitations on conceptualising extended development, neural basis and disorder

    • Little integration with the rest of cognition

Temporo-parietal junction / pSTS

Temporal pole

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

TPJ

TP

Medial view

Lateral view


Background the theory of mind network

Background: The “theory of mind network”

Anterior

Anterior

Posterior

TPJ

TPJ

TP

TP

Right lateral view

Left lateral view

Temporo-parietal junction

TPJ

PC

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

mPFC

Temporal pole

TP

Precuneus

PC

Medial view

e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003

Van Overwalle, 2009


Background the theory of mind network1

Background: The “theory of mind network”

Anterior

Anterior

Posterior

TPJ

TPJ

TP

TP

Right lateral view

Left lateral view

Temporo-parietal junction

TPJ

PC

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

mPFC

Temporal pole

TP

Precuneus

PC

Medial view

e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003

Van Overwalle, 2009


Background the theory of mind network2

Background: The “theory of mind network”

Anterior

Anterior

Posterior

TPJ

TPJ

Main debate is around which regions are “really” ToM regions – i.e. Where is the ToM module?

TP

TP

Right lateral view

Left lateral view

Temporo-parietal junction

TPJ

PC

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

mPFC

Temporal pole

TP

Precuneus

PC

Medial view

e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003

Van Overwalle, 2009


Tom functional localiser saxe kanwisher 2003

ToM functional localiser(Saxe & Kanwisher, 2003......)

False belief (FB) sample story

John told Emily that he had a Porsche.

Actually, his car is a Ford. Emily

doesn’t know anything about cars

though, so she believed John.

When Emily sees John’s car she

thinks it is a

porsche ford

False photograph (FP) sample story

A photograph was taken of an apple hanging

on a tree branch. The film took half an hour to

develop. In the meantime, a strong

wind blew the apple to the ground.

The developed photograph shows the apple on the

ground branch


Tom functional localiser saxe kanwisher 20031

ToM functional localiser(Saxe & Kanwisher, 2003......)

False belief (FB) sample story

John told Emily that he had a Porsche.

Actually, his car is a Ford. Emily

doesn’t know anything about cars

though, so she believed John.

When Emily sees John’s car she

thinks it is a

porsche ford

False photograph (FP) sample story

A photograph was taken of an apple hanging

on a tree branch. The film took half an hour to

develop. In the meantime, a strong

wind blew the apple to the ground.

The developed photograph shows the apple on the

ground branch

R-TPJ shows greatest specificity for reasoning about mental states. Contrast with mPFC, which also shows activity for thinking about body states, internal sensations and personal characteristics.

So is this the ToM module?


Why tom cannot be a fodor module

Why ToM cannot be a Fodor-module


Why tom cannot be a fodor module1

Why ToM cannot be a Fodor-module

  • According to Fodor (1983, 2000) deciding what we believe is an archetypal “central” process

?


Why tom cannot be a fodor module2

Why ToM cannot be a Fodor-module

  • According to Fodor (1983, 2000) deciding what we believe is an archetypal “central” process

  • It would be odd, in the extreme, if deciding what we believed someone else believed were somehow modular

?

?


What might we expect mindreading to involve

What might we expect Mindreading to involve?


What might we expect mindreading to involve1

What might we expect Mindreading to involve?

Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate?

Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life

You was caned? Respect man, respect


What might we expect mindreading to involve2

What might we expect Mindreading to involve?

Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate?

  • Conceptual knowledge about mental states

  • Represent alternative perspectives

Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life

You was caned? Respect man, respect


What might we expect mindreading to involve3

What might we expect Mindreading to involve?

Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate?

  • Conceptual knowledge about mental states

  • Represent alternative perspectives

  • Keep up!

  • Avoid interference from self perspective

Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life

You was caned? Respect man, respect


What might we expect mindreading to involve4

What might we expect Mindreading to involve?

Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate?

  • Conceptual knowledge about mental states

  • Represent alternative perspectives

  • Keep up!

  • Avoid interference from self perspective

  • Make abductive, “best guess” inferences

  • Do this in the context of relevant social scripts

Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life

You was caned? Respect man, respect


Neuroimaging studies that are starting to cast light on these functions and their neural correlates

Neuroimaging studies that are starting to cast light on these functions, and their neural correlates


Belief desire reasoning

Belief-desire reasoning

  • Young children pass true belief tasks (~3Y) before false belief tasks (~4Y) (e.g., Bartsch & Wellman, 1988)

True belief

Difficulty

False belief

B+

B-


Belief desire reasoning1

D-

D+

Difficulty

B+

B-

Belief-desire reasoning

  • Young children pass true belief tasks before false belief tasks (e.g., Bartsch & Wellman, 1988)

  • Young children pass false belief tasks at ~4 years when protagonist wishes to find object, but not until ~5 years when protagonist wishes to avoid object (e.g., Cassidy, 1998; Friedman & Leslie, 2004)

True belief

False belief


Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires hartwright apperly hansen 2012

Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)

  • Behavioural study

  • (Apperly et al., 2011, Ch.Dev.;


Children s data apperly warren et al 2012

D-

Difficulty

D+

B+

B-

Children’s dataApperly, Warren, et al. (2012)

Errors

RT to correct responses

Main Effects: Belief, Desire, Age

Age*Desire – but Desire significant at all ages


Children s data apperly warren et al 20121

D-

Difficulty

D+

B+

B-

Children’s dataApperly, Warren, et al. (2012)

Errors

RT to correct responses

Main Effects: Belief, Desire, Age

Age*Desire –Desire significant only at 6-7 and 8-9

Main Effects: Belief, Desire, Age

Age*Desire – but Desire significant at all ages


Adults data

D-

Difficulty

D+

B+

B-

Adults’ data

Consistent with German & Hehman (2006)

Errors

RT to correct responses

Belief, Desire

Belief*Desire – all comparisons significant


Adults data1

D-

Difficulty

D+

B+

B-

Adults’ data

Consistent with German & Hehman (2006)

Errors

RT to correct responses

Belief, Desire

Belief*Desire – all comparisons significant

Belief, not Desire


Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires hartwright apperly hansen 20121

Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)

  • Behavioural study

  • (Apperly et al., 2011, Ch.Dev.;


Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires hartwright apperly hansen 20122

Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)

  • B- is harder than B+

  • D- is harder than D+

  • This replicates findings from children and adults

    • (Apperly et al., 2011, Ch.Dev.;


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

  • Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)

Belief (True vs. False) TPJ, ACC, IFG

Desire (Like vs. Hate) TPJ, ACC

Overlap


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

  • Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)

Belief (True vs. False) TPJ, ACC, IFG

Desire (Like vs. Hate) TPJ, ACC

Notably no mPFC

Overlap


Belief desire task vs tom localiser

Belief-desire task vs. ToM-localiser

Belief OR Desire

“ToM localiser” (False Belief – False Photo)

Overlap

Conjunction analysis between Belief-Desire and ToM Localiser


Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires hartwright apperly hansen 20123

Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)

  • Varying Belief and Desire (not belief or desire per se) modulates activity in

    • “control” areas (ACC) – perhaps reflecting variation in condition difficulty

    • “ToM” areas (bilateral TPJ)


Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires hartwright apperly hansen 20124

Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)

  • Varying Belief and Desire (not belief or desire per se) modulates activity in

    • “control” areas (ACC) – perhaps reflecting variation in condition difficulty

    • “ToM” areas (bilateral TPJ)

  • Varying Belief (but not Desire) modulates

    • “control” areas (IFG – R-IFG in particular) – only B- vs. B+ involves a perspective difference


Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires hartwright apperly hansen 20125

Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)

  • Varying Belief and Desire (not belief or desire per se) modulates activity in

    • “control” areas (ACC) – perhaps reflecting variation in condition difficulty

    • “ToM” areas (bilateral TPJ)

  • Varying Belief (but not Desire) modulates

    • “control” areas (IFG – R-IFG in particular) – only B- vs. B+ involves a perspective difference

  • Why are “control” areas not observed in ToM localiser?

    • False Photo subtracts this from False Belief


Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires hartwright apperly hansen 20126

Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)

  • Varying Belief and Desire (not belief or desire per se) modulates activity in

    • “control” areas (ACC) – perhaps reflecting variation in condition difficulty

    • “ToM” areas (bilateral TPJ)

  • Varying Belief (but not Desire) modulates

    • “control” areas (IFG – R-IFG in particular) – only B- vs. B+ involves a perspective difference

  • Why are “control” areas not observed in ToM localiser?

    • False Photo subtracts this from False Belief

  • Why is mPFC observed in localiser but not our task?

    • Our task does not require abductive “uncertain” inferences


Social abduction hartwright apperly hansen in prep

Social abduction(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, in prep)


Social abduction hartwright apperly hansen subm

Social abduction(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, subm.)

TB vs. FB

Green = D? vs. D-&D+

Green = D? vs. D-&D+&FB&TB

Selective for D?


Case study 2 temporal coordination

Case study 2 – Temporal coordination


Background the neural basis of theory of mind

Background: The neural basis of “theory of mind”

Anterior

Anterior

Posterior

TPJ

TPJ

lPFC

lPFC

TP

TP

Right lateral view

Left lateral view

Temporo-parietal junction

TPJ

PC

Temporal pole

TP

mPFC

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

Lateral prefrontal cortex

lPFC

We don’t know how these

regions work together

e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003

Van Overwalle, 2009

Precuneus

PC

Medial view


Automatic perspective taking samson apperly braithwaite et al 2010 jep hpp

Automatic perspective-taking?(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP)

1,2, or 3 discs

Self / Other Consistent

You / He

2

Disc position varies

Self / Other Inconsistent

You / He

2


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

Automatic perspective-taking?(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP)

1,2, or 3 discs

Self / Other Consistent

You / He

2

Disc position varies

Self / Other Inconsistent

You / He

2


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

Automatic perspective-taking?(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP)

Egocentric interference on explicit judgement of other

RT (ms)

Main effect of consistency

Significant interaction


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

Automatic perspective-taking?(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP)

Altercentric interference =evidence of automatic calculation of perspective

RT (ms)

Main effect of consistency

Significant interaction


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

Automatic perspective-taking?(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP)

Various follow-ups.....

Altercentric interference = evidence of automatic calculation of perspective

RT (ms)

Main effect of consistency

Significant interaction


Automatic perspective taking samson apperly braithwaite et al 2010 jep hpp1

Automatic perspective-taking?(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP)

Only ever judge “self” – how many dots you can see


Automatic perspective taking samson apperly braithwaite et al 2010 jep hpp2

Automatic perspective-taking?(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP)

*

ns

Only ever judge “self” – how many dots you can see


Automatic and controlled processes within a perspective taking problem

Automatic and controlled processes within a perspective-taking problem?

Altercentric interference = indication of automatic perspective calculation

RT (ms)

Main effect of consistency

Significant interaction

Calculation

Selection

Response

Self

Self

Yes

Other


Automatic and controlled processes within a perspective taking problem1

Automatic and controlled processes within a perspective-taking problem?

Altercentric interference = indication of automatic perspective calculation

RT (ms)

Dual tasking

Main effect of consistency

Significant interaction

Calculation

Selection

Response

Self

Self

Yes

Other


Cognitively effortful perspective selection qureshi apperly samson 2010 cognition

Cognitively effortful perspective selectionQureshi, Apperly & Samson (2010) Cognition.

Altercentric interference is increased by dual tasking with an executive task


Background the neural basis of theory of mind1

Background: The neural basis of “theory of mind”

Anterior

Anterior

Posterior

TPJ

TPJ

lPFC

lPFC

TP

TP

Right lateral view

Left lateral view

Temporo-parietal junction

TPJ

PC

Temporal pole

TP

mPFC

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

Lateral prefrontal cortex

lPFC

Precuneus

PC

Medial view

e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003

Van Overwalle, 2009


Background the neural basis of theory of mind2

Background: The neural basis of “theory of mind”

Anterior

Anterior

Posterior

TPJ

TPJ

lPFC

lPFC

TP

TP

Right lateral view

Left lateral view

Temporo-parietal junction

TPJ

PC

Temporal pole

TP

mPFC

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

Lateral prefrontal cortex

lPFC

Precuneus

PC

Medial view

e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003

Van Overwalle, 2009


Background the neural basis of theory of mind3

Background: The neural basis of “theory of mind”

Anterior

Anterior

Posterior

TPJ

TPJ

lPFC

lPFC

TP

TP

Right lateral view

Left lateral view

Temporo-parietal junction

TPJ

PC

Temporal pole

TP

mPFC

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

Lateral prefrontal cortex

lPFC

Precuneus

PC

Medial view

e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003

Van Overwalle, 2009


Background the neural basis of theory of mind4

Background: The neural basis of “theory of mind”

Anterior

Anterior

Posterior

TPJ

TPJ

lPFC

lPFC

TP

TP

Right lateral view

Left lateral view

Temporo-parietal junction

TPJ

PC

Temporal pole

TP

mPFC

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

Lateral prefrontal cortex

lPFC

We don’t know how these

regions work together

e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003

Van Overwalle, 2009

Precuneus

PC

Medial view


Predictions for an erp study

Predictions for an ERP study

  • Functionally, we have evidence for an initial process of perspective calculation followed by a later process of perspective selection

  • Calculation: Where do we first see discrimination between Self and Other conditions? (Anterior/Frontal versus Posterior/Temporo-parietal)

  • Selection: Predict later process in lPFC (perhaps right lPFC), that differentiates Congruent and Incongruent conditions.


Erp study mccleery et al 2011 journal of neuroscience

ERP study(McCleery et al., 2011, Journal of Neuroscience)

  • Pilot study (N=8) identified electrode sets in which we observed differentiation of conditions.

  • Main study (N=17) 192 trials per condition

  • Behavioural effects

    • Self<Other in RTs

    • Consistent<Inconsistent in RTs and Errors

    • Effect of Consistency was greatest for Other

  • ERP recorded from onset of picture


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

Perspective calculation:450msSelf<Other latency over posterior scalpConfirmatory source analysis suggested Bilateral TPJ


Perspective selection lsw 600 800ms inconsistent consistent amplitude over right anterior scalp

Perspective selection:LSW (600-800ms)Inconsistent<Consistent amplitude over right anterior scalp


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

Perspective selection:LSW (600-800ms)Inconsistent<Consistent amplitude over right anterior scalpRight inferior frontal gyrus was the only source to discriminate Inconsistent<Consistent for both Self and Other


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

ConclusionsPrimacy for posterior regions in perspective calculation – at least for simple perspectives

Anterior

Anterior

Posterior

TPJ

TPJ

lPFC

lPFC

TP

TP

Right lateral view

Left lateral view

Temporo-parietal junction

TPJ

PC

Temporal pole

TP

mPFC

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

Lateral prefrontal cortex

lPFC

Precuneus

PC

Medial view

e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003

Van Overwalle, 2009


Conclusions role for non tom control network in perspective selection

ConclusionsRole for non-ToM “control network” in perspective selection

Anterior

Anterior

Posterior

TPJ

TPJ

lPFC

lPFC

TP

TP

Right lateral view

Left lateral view

Temporo-parietal junction

TPJ

PC

Temporal pole

TP

mPFC

Medial prefrontal cortex

mPFC

Lateral prefrontal cortex

lPFC

Precuneus

PC

Medial view

e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003

Van Overwalle, 2009


What might we expect mindreading to involve the tom network

What might we expect Mindreading to involve?The “ToM network”

Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate?

TPJ

  • Conceptual knowledge about mental states

  • Represent alternative perspectives

  • Keep up!

  • Avoid interference from self perspective

  • Make abductive, “best guess” inferences

  • Do this in the context of relevant social scripts

TP

Right lateral view

PC

Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life

mPFC

You was caned? Respect man, respect

Medial view


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

What might we expect Mindreading to involve?The “ToM network”

Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate?

TPJ

  • Conceptual knowledge about mental states

  • Represent alternative perspectives

  • Keep up!

  • Avoid interference from self perspective

  • Make abductive, “best guess” inferences

  • Do this in the context of relevant social scripts

TP

Right lateral view

PC

Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life

mPFC

You was caned? Respect man, respect

Medial view


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

What might we expect Mindreading to involve?The “ToM network”

Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate?

TPJ

  • Conceptual knowledge about mental states

  • Represent alternative perspectives

  • Keep up!

  • Avoid interference from self perspective

  • Make abductive, “best guess” inferences

  • Do this in the context of relevant social scripts ?????????

TP

Right lateral view

PC

Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life

mPFC

You was caned? Respect man, respect

Medial view


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

What might we expect Mindreading to involve?Cognitive control

Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate?

TPJ

  • Conceptual knowledge about mental states

  • Represent alternative perspectives

  • Keep up!

  • Avoid interference from self perspective

  • Make abductive, “best guess” inferences

  • Do this in the context of relevant social scripts

TP

Right lateral view

ACC

PC

Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life

mPFC

You was caned? Respect man, respect

Medial view


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

What might we expect Mindreading to involve?Cognitive control

Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate?

TPJ

  • Conceptual knowledge about mental states

  • Represent alternative perspectives

  • Keep up!

  • Avoid interference from self perspective

  • Make abductive, “best guess” inferences

  • Do this in the context of relevant social scripts

lPFC

TP

Right lateral view

ACC

PC

Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life

mPFC

You was caned? Respect man, respect

Medial view


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

What might we expect Mindreading to involve?Cognitive control

Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate?

TPJ

  • Conceptual knowledge about mental states

  • Represent alternative perspectives

  • Keep up!

  • Avoid interference from self perspective

  • Make abductive, “best guess” inferences

  • Do this in the context of relevant social scripts

  • ???

lPFC

TP

Right lateral view

ACC

PC

Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life

mPFC

You was caned? Respect man, respect

Medial view


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

What might we expect Mindreading to involve?

Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate?

TPJ

  • Conceptual knowledge about mental states

  • Represent alternative perspectives

  • Keep up!

  • Avoid interference from self perspective

  • Make abductive, “best guess” inferences

  • Do this in the context of relevant social scripts

  • Whether or not these particulars are correct.....

  • “Where is the ToM module” is a poorly conceived question

  • Functional and neural studies are combining to give new insights into what ToM is, and how we do it.

lPFC

TP

Right lateral view

ACC

PC

Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life

mPFC

You was caned? Respect man, respect

Medial view


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

Orthogonal variation of mental/non-mental and ambiguous/unambiguous inferences(Jenkins & Mitchell, 2009, Cereb.Cortex.)


Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers

Orthogonal variation of mental/non-mental and ambiguous/unambiguous inferences(Jenkins & Mitchell, 2009, Cereb.Cortex.)

Main effect of Mental/non-mental in rTPJ

Main effect of ambiguous/unambiguous in mPFC


Social abduction hartwright apperly hansen in prep1

Social abduction(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, in prep)


  • Login