心理区域理论如何处理突发事件:概念复制。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES Social Neuroscience Pub Date : 2023-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-30 DOI:10.1080/17470919.2023.2218620
Ryan M McManus, James A Dungan, Kevin Jiang, Liane Young
{"title":"心理区域理论如何处理突发事件:概念复制。","authors":"Ryan M McManus,&nbsp;James A Dungan,&nbsp;Kevin Jiang,&nbsp;Liane Young","doi":"10.1080/17470919.2023.2218620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent research in social neuroscience has postulated that Theory of Mind (ToM) regions play a role in processing social prediction error (PE: the difference between what was expected and what was observed). Here, we tested whether PE signal depends on the type of prior information people use to make predictions - an agent's prior mental states (e.g., beliefs, desires, preferences) or an agent's prior behavior - as well as the type of information that confirms or violates such predictions. That is, does prior information about mental states (versus behavior) afford stronger predictions about an agent's subsequent mental states or behaviors? Additionally, when information about an agent's prior mental states or behavior is available, is PE signal strongest when information about an agent's subsequent mental state (vs behavior) is revealed? In line with prior research, results suggest that DMPFC, LTPJ, and RTPJ are recruited more for unexpected than expected outcomes. However, PE signal does not seem to discriminate on the basis of prior or outcome information type. These findings suggest that ToM regions may flexibly incorporate any available information to make predictions about, monitor, and perhaps explain, inconsistencies in social agents.</p>","PeriodicalId":49511,"journal":{"name":"Social Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How unexpected events are processed in theory of mind regions: A conceptual replication.\",\"authors\":\"Ryan M McManus,&nbsp;James A Dungan,&nbsp;Kevin Jiang,&nbsp;Liane Young\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17470919.2023.2218620\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recent research in social neuroscience has postulated that Theory of Mind (ToM) regions play a role in processing social prediction error (PE: the difference between what was expected and what was observed). Here, we tested whether PE signal depends on the type of prior information people use to make predictions - an agent's prior mental states (e.g., beliefs, desires, preferences) or an agent's prior behavior - as well as the type of information that confirms or violates such predictions. That is, does prior information about mental states (versus behavior) afford stronger predictions about an agent's subsequent mental states or behaviors? Additionally, when information about an agent's prior mental states or behavior is available, is PE signal strongest when information about an agent's subsequent mental state (vs behavior) is revealed? In line with prior research, results suggest that DMPFC, LTPJ, and RTPJ are recruited more for unexpected than expected outcomes. However, PE signal does not seem to discriminate on the basis of prior or outcome information type. These findings suggest that ToM regions may flexibly incorporate any available information to make predictions about, monitor, and perhaps explain, inconsistencies in social agents.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Neuroscience\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2023.2218620\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2023.2218620","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近社会神经科学的研究假设,心理理论(ToM)区域在处理社会预测错误(PE:预期和观察之间的差异)中发挥作用。在这里,我们测试了PE信号是否取决于人们用来进行预测的先前信息的类型——代理人先前的心理状态(例如,信念、欲望、偏好)或代理人先前的行为——以及证实或违反此类预测的信息类型。也就是说,关于心理状态(相对于行为)的先验信息是否能对代理人随后的心理状态或行为做出更有力的预测?此外,当关于代理人先前的精神状态或行为的信息可用时,当有关代理人随后的精神状态(与行为)的信息被揭示时,PE信号最强吗?与先前的研究一致,结果表明,DMPFC、LTPJ和RTPJ因意外结果而被招募的人数多于预期。然而,PE信号似乎不会基于先前或结果信息类型进行区分。这些发现表明,ToM区域可以灵活地结合任何可用的信息来预测、监测并解释社会主体的不一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How unexpected events are processed in theory of mind regions: A conceptual replication.

Recent research in social neuroscience has postulated that Theory of Mind (ToM) regions play a role in processing social prediction error (PE: the difference between what was expected and what was observed). Here, we tested whether PE signal depends on the type of prior information people use to make predictions - an agent's prior mental states (e.g., beliefs, desires, preferences) or an agent's prior behavior - as well as the type of information that confirms or violates such predictions. That is, does prior information about mental states (versus behavior) afford stronger predictions about an agent's subsequent mental states or behaviors? Additionally, when information about an agent's prior mental states or behavior is available, is PE signal strongest when information about an agent's subsequent mental state (vs behavior) is revealed? In line with prior research, results suggest that DMPFC, LTPJ, and RTPJ are recruited more for unexpected than expected outcomes. However, PE signal does not seem to discriminate on the basis of prior or outcome information type. These findings suggest that ToM regions may flexibly incorporate any available information to make predictions about, monitor, and perhaps explain, inconsistencies in social agents.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Neuroscience
Social Neuroscience 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Neuroscience features original empirical Research Papers as well as targeted Reviews, Commentaries and Fast Track Brief Reports that examine how the brain mediates social behavior, social cognition, social interactions and relationships, group social dynamics, and related topics that deal with social/interpersonal psychology and neurobiology. Multi-paper symposia and special topic issues are organized and presented regularly as well. The goal of Social Neuroscience is to provide a place to publish empirical articles that intend to further our understanding of the neural mechanisms contributing to the development and maintenance of social behaviors, or to understanding how these mechanisms are disrupted in clinical disorders.
期刊最新文献
Emotional engagement with close friends in adolescence predicts neural correlates of empathy in adulthood. Social-touch and self-touch differ in hemodynamic response in the prefrontal cortex - a fNIRS study conducted during the coronavirus pandemic. Distinct neural correlates of accuracy and bias in the perception of facial emotion expressions. The neural representation of self, close, and famous others: An electrophysiological investigation on the social brain. Testosterone, cortisol, and psychopathy: Further evidence with the Levenson self-report psychopathy scale and the inventory of callous unemotional traits.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1