Transcript Ian Apperly
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 the cognitive basis of “theory of mind” if our methods don’t presuppose the answers.
Ian Apperly
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 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 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 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
TPJ TP Lateral view Medial view
Theory of mind in adults?
• “But don’t adults have a theory of mind……?”
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
TPJ TP Lateral view Medial view
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
TPJ TP Lateral view Medial view
Background: The “theory of mind network”
Anterior Anterior Posterior TPJ TP Left lateral view TPJ TP Right lateral view TPJ mPFC TP PC
Temporo-parietal junction Medial prefrontal cortex Temporal pole Precuneus
Medial view
e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003 Van Overwalle, 2009
Background: The “theory of mind network”
Anterior Anterior Posterior TPJ TP Left lateral view TPJ TP Right lateral view TPJ mPFC TP PC
Temporo-parietal junction Medial prefrontal cortex Temporal pole Precuneus
Medial view
e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003 Van Overwalle, 2009
Background: The “theory of mind network”
Anterior Anterior Posterior TPJ TP Left lateral view TPJ TP Right lateral view TPJ mPFC TP PC
Temporo-parietal junction Medial prefrontal cortex Temporal pole Precuneus Main debate is around which regions are “really” ToM regions – i.e. Where is the ToM module?
Medial view
e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003 Van Overwalle, 2009
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, 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
• According to Fodor (1983, 2000) deciding what we believe is an archetypal “central” process ?
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?
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 involve?
• • Conceptual knowledge about mental states Represent alternative perspectives 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 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 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 • • • • • • 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 You was caned? Respect man, respect
Neuroimaging studies that are starting to cast light on these functions, and their neural correlates
Belief-desire reasoning
• Young children pass true belief tasks (~3Y) before false belief tasks (~4Y) (e.g., Bartsch & Wellman, 1988) True belief False belief 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 D D+ False belief B+ B-
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) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 B+ 6-7Y B RT to correct responses B+ 8-9Y B-
Belief
B+ B 10-11Y B+ B Adults Adults D+ D Main Effects: Belief, Desire, Age Age*Desire – but Desire significant at all ages D D+ B+ B Errors 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 B+ 6-7Y B B+ 8-9Y B-
Belief
B+ B 10-11Y B+ B Adults Adults D+ D-
Children’s data Apperly, Warren, et al. (2012) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 B+ 6-7Y B RT to correct responses B+ 8-9Y B-
Belief
B+ B 10-11Y B+ B Adults Adults D+ D Main Effects: Belief, Desire, Age Age*Desire – but Desire significant at all ages D D+ B+ B Errors 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 B+ 6-7Y B B+ 8-9Y B-
Belief
B+ B 10-11Y B+ B Adults Adults Main Effects: Belief, Desire, Age Age*Desire –Desire significant only at 6-7 and 8-9 D+ D-
Adults’ data Consistent with German & Hehman (2006) RT to correct responses 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 B+ 6-7Y B B+ 8-9Y B-
Belief
B+ B 10-11Y B+ B Adults Adults Belief, Desire Belief*Desire – all comparisons significant D+ D B+ B Errors 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 B+ 6-7Y B B+ 8-9Y B-
Belief
B+ B 10-11Y B+ B Adults Adults D D+ D+ D-
Adults’ data Consistent with German & Hehman (2006) RT to correct responses 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 B+ 6-7Y B B+ 8-9Y B-
Belief
B+ B 10-11Y B+ B Adults Adults Belief, Desire Belief*Desire – all comparisons significant D+ D Errors 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 B+ 6-7Y B Belief, not Desire B+ 8-9Y B-
Belief
B+ B 10-11Y B+ B B+ B Adults Adults D D+ D+ D-
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, 2012) • B- is harder than B+ • D- is harder than D+ • This replicates findings from children and adults – (Apperly et al., 2011, Ch.Dev.;
Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires (Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012) Belief (True vs. False) TPJ, ACC, IFG Desire (Like vs. Hate) TPJ, ACC Overlap
Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires (Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012) Belief (True vs. False) TPJ, ACC, IFG Desire (Like vs. Hate) TPJ, ACC Overlap Notably no mPFC
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, 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, 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, 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, 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)
TB vs. FB
Social abduction
(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, subm.) Green = D? vs. D-&D+ Green = D? vs. D-&D+&FB&TB Selective for D?
Case study 2 – Temporal coordination
Background: The neural basis of “theory of mind”
Anterior Anterior Posterior lPFC TP TPJ Left lateral view Medial view TPJ TP lPFC Right lateral view TPJ TP mPFC lPFC PC
Temporo-parietal junction Temporal pole Medial prefrontal cortex Lateral prefrontal cortex Precuneus
We don’t know how these regions work together
e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003 Van Overwalle, 2009
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
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
Automatic perspective-taking?
(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP) 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 Egocentric interference on explicit judgement of other
Self Other Self Other
Main effect of consistency
Discs vary Figure varies
Significant interaction
Self Blocked Other Consistent Inconsistent
Automatic perspective-taking?
(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP) 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 Altercentric interference =evidence of automatic calculation of perspective
Self Other Self Other
Main effect of consistency
Discs vary Figure varies
Significant interaction
Self Blocked Other Consistent Inconsistent
Automatic perspective-taking?
(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP) 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 Altercentric interference = evidence of automatic calculation of perspective Various follow-ups.....
Self Other Self Other
Main effect of consistency
Discs vary Figure varies
Significant interaction
Self Blocked Other Consistent Inconsistent
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:HPP) Only ever judge “self” – how many dots you can see 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 * ns Self - avatar distractor Self - rectangle distractor Experiment 3 Consistent Inconsistent
Automatic and controlled processes within a perspective-taking problem?
650 600 550 500 450 400 900 850 800 750 700 Altercentric interference = indication of automatic perspective calculation
Consistent Inconsistent Self Other
Main effect of consistency
Discs vary Self Other Figure varies
Significant interaction
Self Blocked Other Calculation
Self Other
Selection
Self
Response
Yes
Automatic and controlled processes within a perspective-taking problem?
650 600 550 500 450 400 900 850 800 750 700 Altercentric interference = indication of automatic perspective calculation
Consistent Inconsistent Self Other Discs vary Self Other
Main effect of consistency
Figure varies
Significant interaction
Self Blocked Other Calculation
Self Other
Selection
Self
Response
Yes
Cognitively effortful perspective
selection Qureshi, Apperly & Samson (2010) Cognition. Altercentric interference is increased by dual tasking with an executive task 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Alone Other Dual Alone Self Dual Consistent Inconsistent
Background: The neural basis of “theory of mind”
Anterior Anterior Posterior lPFC TP TPJ Left lateral view Medial view TPJ TP lPFC Right lateral view TPJ TP mPFC lPFC PC
Temporo-parietal junction Temporal pole Medial prefrontal cortex Lateral prefrontal cortex Precuneus e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003 Van Overwalle, 2009
Background: The neural basis of “theory of mind”
Anterior Anterior Posterior lPFC TP TPJ Left lateral view Medial view TPJ TP lPFC Right lateral view TPJ TP mPFC lPFC PC
Temporo-parietal junction Temporal pole Medial prefrontal cortex Lateral prefrontal cortex Precuneus e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003 Van Overwalle, 2009
Background: The neural basis of “theory of mind”
Anterior Anterior Posterior lPFC TP TPJ Left lateral view Medial view TPJ TP lPFC Right lateral view TPJ TP mPFC lPFC PC
Temporo-parietal junction Temporal pole Medial prefrontal cortex Lateral prefrontal cortex Precuneus e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003 Van Overwalle, 2009
Background: The neural basis of “theory of mind”
Anterior Anterior Posterior lPFC TP TPJ Left lateral view Medial view TPJ TP lPFC Right lateral view TPJ TP mPFC lPFC PC
Temporo-parietal junction Temporal pole Medial prefrontal cortex Lateral prefrontal cortex Precuneus
We don’t know how these regions work together
e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003 Van Overwalle, 2009
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) • 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 Perspective calculation 450ms Self Perspective selection LSW (600-800ms) Inconsistent < Consistent amplitude over right anterior scalp Perspective selection LSW (600-800ms) Inconsistent Primacy for posterior regions in perspective calculation – at least for simple perspectives Anterior Anterior Posterior lPFC TP TPJ Left lateral view Medial view TPJ TP lPFC Right lateral view TPJ TP mPFC lPFC PC Temporo-parietal junction Temporal pole Medial prefrontal cortex Lateral prefrontal cortex Precuneus e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003 Van Overwalle, 2009 Role for non-ToM “control network” in perspective selection Anterior Anterior Posterior lPFC TP TPJ Left lateral view Medial view TPJ TP lPFC Right lateral view TPJ TP mPFC lPFC PC Temporo-parietal junction Temporal pole Medial prefrontal cortex Lateral prefrontal cortex Precuneus e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003 Van Overwalle, 2009 TPJ TP Right lateral view Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate? What might we expect Mindreading to involve? The “ToM network” Medial view • • • • • • 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 TPJ TP Right lateral view 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? Medial view Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life You was caned? Respect man, respect • • • • • • 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 TPJ TP Right lateral view 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? Medial view Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life You was caned? Respect man, respect • • • • • • 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 ????????? TPJ TP Right lateral view What might we expect Mindreading to involve? Cognitive control ACC Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate? Medial view Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life You was caned? Respect man, respect • • • • • • 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 TPJ TP lPFC Right lateral view What might we expect Mindreading to involve? Cognitive control ACC Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate? Medial view Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life You was caned? Respect man, respect • • • • • • 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 TPJ TP lPFC Right lateral view What might we expect Mindreading to involve? Cognitive control ACC Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate? Medial view Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life You was caned? Respect man, respect • • • • • • 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 • ??? What might we expect Mindreading to involve? TPJ TP lPFC Right lateral view ACC Do you not think, Sir Rhodes, if you get caned in school you can’t concentrate? Medial view Well, I was caned in my time and I’ve concentrated all my life You was caned? Respect man, respect • • • • • • 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. (Jenkins & Mitchell, 2009, Cereb.Cortex.) (Jenkins & Mitchell, 2009, Cereb.Cortex.) Main effect of Mental/non-mental in rTPJ Main effect of ambiguous/unambiguous in mPFC (Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, in prep):
:
:
Conclusions
Conclusions
Orthogonal variation of mental/non-mental and ambiguous/unambiguous inferences
Orthogonal variation of mental/non-mental and ambiguous/unambiguous inferences
Social abduction