fMRI reveals reciprocal inhibition between social and physical cognitive domains
Open accessAbstract
Two lines of evidence indicate that there exists a reciprocal inhibitory relationship between opposed brain networks. First, most attention-demanding cognitive tasks activate a stereotypical set of brain areas, known as the task-positive network and simultaneously deactivate a different set of brain regions, commonly referred to as the task negative or default mode network. Second, functional connectivity analyses show that these same opposed networks are anti-correlated in the resting state. We hypothesize that these reciprocally inhibitory effects reflect two incompatible cognitive modes, each of which may be directed towards understanding the external world. Thus, engaging one mode activates one set of regions and suppresses activity in the other. We test this hypothesis by identifying two types of problem-solving task which, on the basis of prior work, have been consistently associated with the task positive and task negative regions: tasks requiring social cognition, i.e., reasoning about the mental states of other persons, and tasks requiring physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects. Social and mechanical reasoning tasks were presented to neurologically normal participants during fMRI. Each task type was presented using both text and video clips. Regardless of presentation modality, we observed clear evidence of reciprocal suppression: social tasks deactivated regions associated with mechanical reasoning and mechanical tasks deactivated regions associated with social reasoning. These findings are not explained by self-referential processes, task engagement, mental simulation, mental time travel or external vs. internal attention, all factors previously hypothesized to explain default mode network activity. Analyses of resting state data revealed a close match between the regions our tasks identified as reciprocally inhibitory and regions of maximal anti-correlation in the resting state. These results indicate the reciprocal inhibition is not attributable to constraints inherent in the tasks, but is neural in origin. Hence, there is a physiological constraint on our ability to simultaneously engage two distinct cognitive modes. Further work is needed to more precisely characterize these opposing cognitive domains.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In that study, brain regions with increased BOLD signal during the social task and decreased BOLD signal during the physical task overlapped the DMN.
“Specifically, using standard general linear modeling (GLM)-based fMRI data analysis, the study found that brain regions with increased BOLD signal during the social task, and with decreased BOLD signal during the physical task, overlapped the DMN.”
From Specific default mode subnetworks support mentalizing as revealed through opposing network recruitment by social and semantic FMRI tasks: Mentalizing and Default-Mode Subnetworks (2015) · cites this paper as Jack et al., 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 96 · Cited by 280
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Gordon A Smith R Keramatian K Luus B Weinberg A Smallwood J Schooler J Christoff K Mind-wandering, awareness, and task performance: An fMRI study Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale 2007 61 366 366
- Authors
- Jack, A. I., Dawson, A. J., Begany, K. L., Leckie, R. L., Barry, K. P., Ciccia, A. H., & Snyder, A. Z.
- Affiliations
- Case Western Reserve University (US)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jack, Anthony I.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 66
- Pages
- 385-401
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3602121
- OpenAlex
- W2019425620
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 96
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 8.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- NSF (0841313)
- Leonard Krieger Fund
- University Hospitals Case Medical Center Spitz Brain Health fund
- NIH/NINDS
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Keywords
- reciprocal inhibition, task-positive network, default mode network, social cognition, physical cognition, mental state reasoning, causal reasoning, cognitive modes, resting-state functional connectivity, anticorrelation
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Rest, Young Adult
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.
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