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
TPJ
TP
Left lateral view
Medial view
TP
Right lateral view
TPJ
Temporo-parietal junction
mPFC
Medial prefrontal cortex
TP
PC
Temporal pole
Precuneus
e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003
Van Overwalle, 2009
Background: The “theory of mind network”
Anterior
Anterior
Posterior
TPJ
TPJ
TP
Left lateral view
Medial view
TP
Right lateral view
TPJ
Temporo-parietal junction
mPFC
Medial prefrontal cortex
TP
PC
Temporal pole
Precuneus
e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003
Van Overwalle, 2009
Background: The “theory of mind network”
Anterior
Anterior
Posterior
TPJ
TPJ
TP
Left lateral view
Medial view
Main debate is around
which regions are
“really” ToM regions –
i.e. Where is the ToM
module?
TP
Right lateral view
TPJ
Temporo-parietal junction
mPFC
Medial prefrontal cortex
TP
PC
Temporal pole
Precuneus
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?
• Conceptual knowledge about
mental states
• Represent alternative perspectives
• Keep up!
• Avoid interference from self
perspective
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?
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)
False belief
Difficulty
True 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-
Difficulty
False belief
D+
B+
B-
Orthogonal variation of beliefs and desires
(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)
Behavioural study
(Apperly et al., 2011, Ch.Dev.;
DD+
Difficulty
Children’s data
Apperly, Warren, et al. (2012)
B+ BErrors
RT to correct responses
3500
0.6
3000
2500
2000
D+
D-
1500
1000
Proportion of errors
Response Time (ms)
0.5
0.4
D+
0.3
D-
0.2
0.1
500
0
0
B+
6-7Y
B-
B+
B+
B-
B-
10-11Y
8-9Y
B+
B-
Adults Adults
Belief
Main Effects: Belief, Desire, Age
Age*Desire – but Desire significant at all ages
B+
B-
6-7Y
B+
B+
B-
B-
10-11Y
8-9Y
Belief
B+
B-
Adults Adults
DD+
Difficulty
Children’s data
Apperly, Warren, et al. (2012)
B+ BErrors
RT to correct responses
3500
0.6
3000
2500
2000
D+
D-
1500
1000
Proportion of errors
Response Time (ms)
0.5
0.4
D+
0.3
D-
0.2
0.1
500
0
0
B+
6-7Y
B-
B+
B+
B-
B-
10-11Y
8-9Y
B+
B-
Adults Adults
Belief
Main Effects: Belief, Desire, Age
Age*Desire – but Desire significant at all ages
B+
B-
6-7Y
B+
B+
B-
B-
10-11Y
8-9Y
B+
B-
Adults Adults
Belief
Main Effects: Belief, Desire, Age
Age*Desire –Desire significant only at 6-7 and 8-9
DD+
Difficulty
Adults’ data
Consistent with German & Hehman (2006)
B+ BErrors
RT to correct responses
3500
0.6
3000
2500
2000
D+
D-
1500
1000
Proportion of errors
Response Time (ms)
0.5
0.4
D+
0.3
D-
0.2
0.1
500
0
0
B+
6-7Y
B-
B+
B+
B-
B-
10-11Y
8-9Y
B+
B-
Adults Adults
Belief
Belief, Desire
Belief*Desire – all comparisons significant
B+
B-
6-7Y
B+
B+
B-
B-
10-11Y
8-9Y
Belief
B+
B-
Adults Adults
DD+
Difficulty
Adults’ data
Consistent with German & Hehman (2006)
B+ BErrors
RT to correct responses
3500
0.6
3000
2500
2000
D+
D-
1500
1000
Proportion of errors
Response Time (ms)
0.5
0.4
D+
0.3
D-
0.2
0.1
500
0
0
B+
6-7Y
B-
B+
B+
B-
B-
10-11Y
8-9Y
B+
B-
Adults Adults
B+
B-
6-7Y
Belief
Belief, Desire
Belief*Desire – all comparisons significant
B+
B+
B-
10-11Y
8-9Y
Belief
Belief, not Desire
B-
B+
B-
Adults Adults
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)
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
Background: The neural basis of “theory of
mind”
Anterior
Anterior
Posterior
TPJ
TPJ
lPFC
lPFC
TP
Left lateral view
TP
Right lateral view
TPJ
Temporo-parietal junction
TP
mPFC
lPFC
PC
Temporal pole
Medial prefrontal cortex
Lateral prefrontal cortex
Precuneus
We don’t know how these
regions work together
Medial view
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
Egocentric interference on explicit
judgement of other
850
800
RT (ms)
750
700
Consistent
Inconsistent
650
600
550
500
450
400
Self
Other
Self
Other
Main effect of consistency
Discs vary
Figure varies
Significant interaction
Self
Other
Blocked
Automatic perspective-taking?
(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP)
900
Altercentric interference =evidence of
automatic calculation of perspective
850
800
RT (ms)
750
700
Consistent
Inconsistent
650
600
550
500
450
400
Self
Other
Self
Other
Main effect of consistency
Discs vary
Figure varies
Significant interaction
Self
Other
Blocked
Automatic perspective-taking?
(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP)
900
Altercentric interference = evidence of
automatic calculation of perspective
850
800
RT (ms)
750
700
Consistent
Inconsistent
650
600
550
500
450
Various follow-ups.....
400
Self
Other
Self
Other
Main effect of consistency
Discs vary
Figure varies
Significant interaction
Self
Other
Blocked
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)
800
Reaction time (ms)
750
700
650
Consistent
*
ns
600
550
500
Self - avatar distractor
Self - rectangle distractor
Experiment 3
Only ever judge “self” – how many dots
you can see
Inconsistent
Automatic and controlled processes within a perspective-taking
problem?
900
Altercentric interference = indication of
automatic perspective calculation
850
800
RT (ms)
750
700
Consistent
Inconsistent
650
600
550
500
450
400
Self
Other
Self
Other
Main effect of consistency
Figure varies
Significant interaction
Discs vary
Self
Other
Blocked
Calculation
Selection
Response
Self
Other
Self
Yes
Automatic and controlled processes within a perspective-taking
problem?
900
Altercentric interference = indication of
automatic perspective calculation
850
800
RT (ms)
750
700
Consistent
Inconsistent
650
600
550
500
450
400
Self
Other
Self
Other
Self
Dual tasking
Main effect of consistency
Figure varies
Significant interaction
Discs vary
Other
Blocked
Calculation
Selection
Response
Self
Other
Self
Yes
Cognitively effortful perspective selection
Qureshi, Apperly & Samson (2010) Cognition.
Processing costs (RT/prop. correct)
Altercentric interference is increased by
dual tasking with an executive task
1200
1000
800
Consistent
600
Inconsistent
400
200
0
Alone
Dual
Other
Alone
Dual
Self
Background: The neural basis of “theory of
mind”
Anterior
Anterior
Posterior
TPJ
TPJ
lPFC
lPFC
TP
Left lateral view
Medial view
TP
Right lateral view
TPJ
Temporo-parietal junction
TP
mPFC
lPFC
PC
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
TPJ
TPJ
lPFC
lPFC
TP
Left lateral view
Medial view
TP
Right lateral view
TPJ
Temporo-parietal junction
TP
mPFC
lPFC
PC
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
TPJ
TPJ
lPFC
lPFC
TP
Left lateral view
Medial view
TP
Right lateral view
TPJ
Temporo-parietal junction
TP
mPFC
lPFC
PC
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
TPJ
TPJ
lPFC
lPFC
TP
Left lateral view
TP
Right lateral view
TPJ
Temporo-parietal junction
TP
mPFC
lPFC
PC
Temporal pole
Medial prefrontal cortex
Lateral prefrontal cortex
Precuneus
We don’t know how these
regions work together
Medial view
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<Other in RTs
– Consistent<Inconsistent in RTs and Errors
– Effect of Consistency was greatest for Other
• ERP recorded from onset of picture
Perspective calculation:
450ms Self<Other latency over posterior scalp
Confirmatory 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
Right inferior frontal gyrus was the only source to discriminate
Inconsistent<Consistent for both Self and Other
Conclusions
Primacy for posterior regions in perspective calculation – at least for simple
perspectives
Anterior
Anterior
Posterior
TPJ
TPJ
lPFC
lPFC
TP
Left lateral view
Medial view
TP
Right lateral view
TPJ
Temporo-parietal junction
TP
mPFC
lPFC
PC
Temporal pole
Medial prefrontal cortex
Lateral prefrontal cortex
Precuneus
e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003
Van Overwalle, 2009
Conclusions
Role for non-ToM “control network” in perspective selection
Anterior
Anterior
Posterior
TPJ
TPJ
lPFC
lPFC
TP
Left lateral view
Medial view
TP
Right lateral view
TPJ
Temporo-parietal junction
TP
mPFC
lPFC
PC
Temporal pole
Medial prefrontal cortex
Lateral prefrontal cortex
Precuneus
e.g. Frith & Frith, 2003
Van Overwalle, 2009
What might we expect Mindreading to involve?
The “ToM network”
TPJ
TP
Right lateral view
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?
The “ToM network”
TPJ
TP
Right lateral view
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?
The “ToM network”
TPJ
TP
Right lateral view
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?
Cognitive control
TPJ
TP
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
What might we expect Mindreading to involve?
Cognitive control
TPJ
lPFC
TP
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
What might we expect Mindreading to involve?
Cognitive control
TPJ
lPFC
TP
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
• 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
What might we expect Mindreading to involve?
•
•
•
•
•
•
TPJ
lPFC
TP
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.
Orthogonal variation of mental/non-mental and
ambiguous/unambiguous inferences
(Jenkins & Mitchell, 2009, Cereb.Cortex.)
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 prep)