brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don t presuppose the answers
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don’t presuppose the answers.

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 75

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


  • 81 Views
  • Uploaded on

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”?.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Brains can tell us more about social cognition if our methods don’t presuppose the answers.' - nora


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

slide2

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 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 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.;
slide33
Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)

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

Desire (Like vs. Hate) TPJ, ACC

Overlap

slide34
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 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?

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

slide45
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

slide46
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

slide47
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

slide48
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
    • Consistent
    • Effect of Consistency was greatest for Other
  • ERP recorded from onset of picture
perspective selection lsw 600 800ms inconsistent consistent amplitude over right anterior scalp
Perspective selection:LSW (600-800ms)Inconsistent
slide62
Perspective selection:LSW (600-800ms)Inconsistent
slide63
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

slide66
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

slide67
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

slide68
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

slide69
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

slide70
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

slide71
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

slide73
Orthogonal variation of mental/non-mental and ambiguous/unambiguous inferences(Jenkins & Mitchell, 2009, Cereb.Cortex.)
slide74
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

ad