Cited by 391Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFace Recognition and Perception

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 115 of the 117 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 91 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The social brain in adolescence: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging and behavioural studies

Open access
Burnett, Stephanie, Sebastian, Catherine, Cohen Kadosh, Kathrin, Blakemore, Sarah-Jayne·2011·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Social cognition is the collection of cognitive processes required to understand and interact with others. The term ‘social brain’ refers to the network of brain regions that underlies these processes. Recent evidence suggests that a number of social cognitive functions continue to develop during adolescence, resulting in age differences in tasks that assess cognitive domains including face processing, mental state inference and responding to peer influence and social evaluation. Concurrently, functional and structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies show differences between adolescent and adult groups within parts of the social brain. Understanding the relationship between these neural and behavioural observations is a challenge. This review discusses current research findings on adolescent social cognitive development and its functional MRI correlates, then integrates and interprets these findings in the context of hypothesised developmental neurocognitive and neurophysiological mechanisms.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review synthesizes fMRI and behavioural evidence that social cognition and the social brain continue to develop through adolescence, with age differences in face processing, mentalising, peer influence, and social evaluation/rejection. It integrates these findings with structural MRI and theoretical models, while highlighting unresolved questions about structure–function mechanisms and bidirectional development.

Key findings

  • Face processing: right FFA face-selective activation expands with age (adult > child; adolescent intermediate in Golarai et al., N=23 children, 10 adolescents, 17 adults), correlated with improved facial identity recognition memory; Scherf et al. found FFA/STS increases from childhood to adolescence but no further specificity changes to adulthood, and Peelen et al. found no age-related increase in fusiform body area, suggesting a double dissociation.
  • Mentalising: activity in anterior rostral MPFC during mentalising relative to control correlates negatively with age from adolescence to adulthood, with some posterior/temporal components showing opposite patterns; Dumontheil et al. found continuing development in late adolescence (between age 17 and early adulthood) on visual-perspective mentalising trials.
  • Peer influence and social evaluation: adolescents took many more risks in a driving simulation when with peers than alone, whereas adults did not differ and youths were intermediate (Gardner & Steinberg); resistance to peer influence increased linearly between 14 and 18 years in >3600 participants aged 10–23+ (Steinberg & Monahan); Cyberball studies showed reduced positive mood and heightened anxiety after exclusion in adolescents vs adults, and adults activated VLPFC more during exclusion/rejection while adolescents showed the reverse or no discrimination.
  • Structural/theoretical: cortical grey matter decreases region-specifically and often non-linearly across adolescence, while white matter volume/density increases; models (SIPN, Triadic, Developmental Mismatch) propose heterochronous limbic/PFC maturation, but direct developmental evidence linking microstructural neuronal properties to BOLD signal is lacking.

Methods

  • Narrative review, not a primary empirical study; synthesizes developmental fMRI, behavioural, and structural MRI findings on adolescent social cognition.
  • Covers face processing, mentalising, peer influence, and social evaluation/rejection, citing cross-sectional child/adolescent/adult studies (e.g., Golarai et al. N=23 children, 10 adolescents, 17 adults; Thomas et al. N=31 children, 23 adolescents, 48 adults; Steinberg & Monahan >3600 aged 10–23+).
  • Main analysis is qualitative integration of findings with theoretical models (Interactive Specialisation, SIPN, Triadic, Developmental Mismatch); no meta-analysis or new data are reported.

Limitations

  • Stated: the experimental picture is incomplete; suitable mentalising paradigms beyond early childhood are lacking; developmental fMRI of facial emotion processing is challenging to interpret; no direct developmental evidence links microstructural neuronal properties (e.g., synapse density, myelination) to BOLD signal; new behavioural measures of emotional self-regulation are needed; the hypothesis that females are more sensitive to social evaluation remains untested.
  • Stated: regional grey and white matter development in specific social brain components has not been systematically characterised, and trajectories of adolescent white matter in specific social-brain tracts have yet to be delineated.
  • Evident: as a narrative review, the literature coverage is described as “not exhaustive,” and no systematic search or quality appraisal is reported; causal links between brain development, fMRI activity, and behaviour remain speculative and potentially bidirectional.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.10.011

Cites

115 of 115 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

61 Not checked yet · 16 Own interpretation · 4 No basis given

Verify all 91 references — free account

Show all 52 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 25
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 5
29 of 29
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Cross-sectional age differences in behavioural and fMRI measures reflect developmental change within individuals over time.

    “Recent cross-sectional developmental fMRI studies suggest that the prolonged acquisition of face processing abilities is mirrored by protracted functional specialisation within the cortical face processing network”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Differences in fMRI activity between adolescent and adult groups within social brain regions can be interpreted as differences in social cognitive function or development.

    “Functional MRI studies show differences between adolescence and adulthood in patterns of activity within these regions and, more recently, in their patterns of functional connectivity.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The tasks used in the reviewed studies validly isolate the social cognitive processes they are intended to measure.

    “This renders any age-associated improvement in performance difficult to attribute to improved mentalising ability per se.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Adolescent behavioural and cognitive development is causally related to changes in functional brain activity measured in fMRI.

    “Implicit in these models is the reasonable assumption that adolescent behavioural and cognitive development is causally related to changes in functional brain activity measured in fMRI, and that the changes in functional brain activity are related to neuroanatomical development.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Changes in functional brain activity are related to neuroanatomical development.

    “Implicit in these models is the reasonable assumption that adolescent behavioural and cognitive development is causally related to changes in functional brain activity measured in fMRI, and that the changes in functional brain activity are related to neuroanatomical development.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 117 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Cohen Kadosh, K., Cohen Kadosh, R., Dick, Johnson, M.H., Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, in press.
  2. Grosbras, 2007, Neural mechanisms of resistance to peer influence in early adolescence, Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 8040, 10.1523/jneurosci.1360-07.2007 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Rolls, E.T., Deco, G. (in press).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–390 of 390

Metadata

Authors
Burnett, S., Sebastian, C., Cohen Kadosh, K., & Blakemore, S.-J.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-08
Volume
35
Issue
8
Pages
1654-1664
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079522256
Cited by
391
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 20
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (077539)
  • Royal Society
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  • Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
social brain, social cognition, adolescence, cognitive development, face processing, mental state inference, peer influence, social evaluation, neurophysiological mechanisms
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Psychology, Adolescent, Brain, Child, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Critical Period, Psychological, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Social Behavior, Social Perception, Adolescent Development, Young Adult, Functional Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review