CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 306Action Observation and SynchronizationNarrative Theory and AnalysisNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses

Open access
Nguyen, Mai, Vanderwal, Tamara, Hasson, Uri·2019·NeuroImage
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.010PMC PMC6287615
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Humans have a striking ability to infer meaning from even the sparsest and most abstract forms of narratives. At the same time, flexibility in the form of a narrative is matched by inherent ambiguity in its interpretation. How does the brain represent subtle, idiosyncratic differences in the interpretation of abstract and ambiguous narratives? In this fMRI study, subjects were scanned either watching a novel 7-min animation depicting a complex narrative through the movement of geometric shapes, or listening to a narration of the animation's social story. Using an intersubject representational similarity analysis that compared interpretation similarity and neural similarity across subjects, we found that the more similar two people's interpretations of the abstract shapes animation were, the more similar were their neural responses in regions of the default mode network (DMN) and fronto-parietal network. Moreover, these shared responses were modality invariant: the shapes movie and the verbal interpretation of the movie elicited shared responses in linguistic areas and a subset of the DMN when subjects shared interpretations. Together, these results suggest a network of high-level regions that are not only sensitive to subtle individual differences in narrative interpretation during naturalistic conditions, but also resilient to large differences in the modality of the narrative.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.010

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

7 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 43 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Audio participants and the 18 Movie participants whose recalls were least similar to Audio showed significant neural similarity only in a small right angular gyrus cluster.

    “In contrast, the Audio subjects and the 18 Movie subjects with recalls that were the least similar to the Audio subjects only showed significant neural similarity in a small cluster of voxels in right angular gyrus (p<.05, FWER corrected; Fig. S1B, bottom row).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall similarity, as measured by LSA, reflects similarity in narrative interpretation.
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall descriptions capture subjects' interpretations of the narrative.
  • Findingown data

    Movie participants sometimes saw a small circle as an object and sometimes as a living character.

    “For example, Movie subjects differed in their interpretation of a small circle as an inanimate object (e.g. a ball pushed around by the triangle child) or an animate character (e.g. a dog or pet or other animate being).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall similarity, as measured by LSA, reflects similarity in narrative interpretation.
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall descriptions capture subjects' interpretations of the narrative.
  • Findingown data

    The two groups did not differ significantly in how long their recalls were (t(52)=1.82, p=.073).

    “While recall length did not differ between groups (t(52) = 1.82, p=.073)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    A t-test found significant differences between the two cross-modal ISC maps in bilateral angular gyrus, PMC, and left MTG.

    “A t-test revealed significant differences between these two ISC maps in bilateral angular gyrus, PMC, and left MTG (Fig 3B, left).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall similarity, as measured by LSA, reflects similarity in narrative interpretation.
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall descriptions capture subjects' interpretations of the narrative.
  • Findingown data

    Across the Movie and Audio groups, mean LSA similarity was 0.545 (SD=0.125, range=0.26-0.8).

    “Between stimuli, the average LSA similarity between the Movie group and the Audio group was 0.545 (std=0.125, range=0.26–0.8).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall similarity, as measured by LSA, reflects similarity in narrative interpretation.
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall descriptions capture subjects' interpretations of the narrative.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 21
  • May combine two claims. 18
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Thirteen Movie participants belonged to both high-similarity groups, thirteen belonged to both low-similarity groups, and ten were in neither overlap.

    “There was some overlap in participants among the groups: 13 of the Movie subjects were in both the “Movie high similarity” group and the “high similarity to Audio” group, while another 13 subjects were in both the “Movie low similarity” group and the “low similarity to Audio.” The remaining 10 Movie subjects did not overlap.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall similarity, as measured by LSA, reflects similarity in narrative interpretation.
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall descriptions capture subjects' interpretations of the narrative.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Audio-group participants spoke for an average of 221.3 seconds (SD 68.8) and mentioned an average of 18.5 events (SD 3.1).

    “In the Audio group, the average recall was 221.3 sec (std = 68.8 sec) and described an average 18.5 events (std = 3.1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among the 18 Movie participants with the most similar recalls, significant ISC appeared in early visual cortex, auditory regions such as A1+, STG, and MTG, and higher-level areas including bilateral angular gyrus, SMG, IFG, PMC, and PCC.

    “The 18 Movie subjects with the most similar recalls to each other showed significantly correlated neural responses throughout early visual areas, including much of occipital cortex, and auditory areas including A1+, superior temporal gyrus (STG), and middle temporal gyrus (MTG). Significant ISC was also observed in high-level regions including bilateral angular gyrus, bilateral supramarginal gyrus”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall similarity, as measured by LSA, reflects similarity in narrative interpretation.
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall descriptions capture subjects' interpretations of the narrative.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The shapes movie and its spoken description yielded common responses in language regions and part of the DMN when participants had similar interpretations, showing modality invariance.

    “Moreover, these shared responses were modality invariant: the shapes movie and the verbal interpretation of the movie elicited shared responses in linguistic areas and a subset of the DMN when subjects shared interpretations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall similarity, as measured by LSA, reflects similarity in narrative interpretation.
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall descriptions capture subjects' interpretations of the narrative.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    Movie participants were divided by their average similarity to the Audio group into a high-similarity-to-Audio group (mean 0.604, SD 0.059, range 0.48-0.8) and a low-similarity-to-Audio group (mean 0.395, SD 0.082, range 0.26-0.64).

    “Based on average similarity to the Audio group, the subjects in the Movie group were split into a “high interpretation similarity to Audio” group (mean similarity = 0.604, std = 0.059, range=0.48–0.8) and a “low interpretation similarity to Audio” group (mean similarity = 0.395, std = 0.082, range = 0.26–0.64).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall similarity, as measured by LSA, reflects similarity in narrative interpretation.
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall descriptions capture subjects' interpretations of the narrative.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Movie-group participants spoke for an average of 177.6 seconds (SD 86.6) and mentioned an average of 14.4 events (SD 4.8).

    “In the Movie group, the average spoken recall was 177.6 sec (std = 86.6 sec) and described on average 14.4 events (std = 4.8), as rated by an independent coder.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Across the Movie and Audio groups, similarity in interpretation between modalities was significantly correlated with cross-modal neural similarity in right DLPFC, PMC, and right angular gyrus (p<.05), with a trending correlation in left DLPFC (p=.068).

    “In ROI analyses, we found that interpretation similarity across modalities was significantly correlated with neural similarity across modalities in right DLPFC, PMC, and right angular gyrus (p<.05) with a trending correlation in left DLPC (p=.068) (Fig 5B).”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “Moreover, the more similarly someone who watched the abstract shapes animation interpreted the narrative to someone who listened to the audio version of the story, the more similar their neural responses in the ROI analysis of PMC, right DLPFC, and right angular gyrus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Similarity between subjects' post-viewing descriptions (recall similarity) is a valid measure of similarity in their interpretation of the narrative.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The high- and low-similarity Movie groups did not differ demographically in age, gender, or race.

    “There were no demographic differences between the two groups (age: t(34)=.11, p>.05; gender: χ2(1)=1.87, p>.05; race: p>.05 all races, max χ2 =.36).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The results align with earlier studies that directly manipulated interpretation by directing attention, changing perspective, or providing biasing context.

    “These results are consistent with previous studies that directly manipulated interpretation by directing attention to different aspects of a spoken narrative (Cooper et al., 2011), changing perspective (Lahnakoski et al., 2014), or biasing with contextual information (Yeshurun et al., 2017b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cooper et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lahnakoski et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Yeshurun et al., 2017b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Latent Semantic Analysis has been reported to perform like humans when judging semantic similarity.

    “Semantic similarity measured by LSA has been shown to have human-like performance (Landauer et al., 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Landauer et al., 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The Movie group was made larger, following earlier ISC studies that compared conditions.

    “A larger sample size for the Movie group was selected based on previous work using ISC to detect differences among conditions (Cooper et al., 2011; Lahnakoski et al., 2014; Schmälzle et al., 2015; Yeshurun et al., 2017b, 2017a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cooper et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lahnakoski et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Schmälzle et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Earlier studies reported that stories produce synchronized brain activity across people in default mode network areas such as TPJ, angular gyrus, temporal poles, PMC, and mPFC.

    “Previous work has shown that narratives elicit correlated neural responses across subjects in regions of the Default Mode Network (DMN), including temporal parietal junction (TPJ), angular gyrus, temporal poles, posterior medial cortex (PMC), and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) (Hasson et al., 2008, 2010; Jaaskelainen et al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2008; Lerner et al., 2011; Ben-Yakov et al., 2012;”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hasson et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jaaskelainen et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lerner et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Motion was not significantly correlated between most subjects (Movie mean r=0.071, SD=0.08; Movie-Audio mean r=0.063, SD=0.086), although a subset of subjects did show correlated motion.

    “Motion was not significantly correlated between most subjects (Movie: mean r = 0.071, std=0.08; Movie-Audio: mean r=0.063, std=0.086), though a subset of subjects did show correlated motion (Movie: 84 of 630 pairwise comparisons; Movie-Audio: 74 or 648 pairwise comparisons; all ps<.05, uncorrected for multiple comparisons).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The number of Audio-group participants was set using prior reliability analyses of the sample size required for stable ISC measurement.

    “The sample size for the Audio group was based on reliability analyses of sample size required to measure reliable ISC (Pajula and Tohka, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pajula and Tohka, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Recent research indicates that the default mode network is engaged during long-lasting stimuli.

    “Although the DMN is typically defined using resting-state data, recent work has shown that the same network is activated during temporally extended stimuli (Simony et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Simony et al., 2016 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    To rule out correlated motion as an explanation, the authors related participants' motion time courses to interpretation similarity, compared motion across similarity groups, and removed motion parameters from the neural data.

    “To verify that these findings were not due to correlated subject motion, we extracted a timecourse of each subject’s estimated framewise displacement and then correlated each pair of subject’s motion time course.”
    • Also stated in: § MRI data analysis · plain
      “Finally, we regressed out each subject’s motion parameters (3 translation, 3 rotation) from their neural response. The residuals from this regression were then used to repeat the above neural analyses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Since the Movie and Audio were time-aligned, their sound amplitude envelopes could be correlated.

    “Because the Movie and Audio were aligned in time such that the start of each event occurs at the same time across, the audio envelopes (audio amplitudes) may be correlated.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    In cross-condition comparisons, the sound amplitude envelope was regressed out of each participant's brain signal to remove shared auditory drive.

    “Following Honey et al. (2012), for between-condition analyses, we thus projected out the audio envelope from each subject’s neural response.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Honey et al. (2012) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Mean frame-wise displacement was 0.083 mm (SD=0.03) during the Movie and 0.072 mm (SD=0.31) during the Audio, indicating excellent participant compliance.

    “The mean frame-wise displacement during the Movie was 0.083 mm (std=0.03) and for the Audio was 0.072mm (std= 0.31), suggesting excellent participant compliance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants whose head movement exceeded 3 mm absolute were excluded.

    “Subjects with excessive head motion (>3mm absolute movement) were removed from the sample.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    This finding extends prior work showing that these regions respond similarly to slightly different stimulus pairs, such as words versus images, spoken versus written sentences, and audio-visual versus spoken narratives.

    “This finding extends previous work showing that these regions respond similarly to slightly different pairs of stimuli, for example, individually presented words versus images of the same item (e.g. Chee et al., 2000; Marinkovic et al., 2003; Bruffaerts et al., 2013); spoken versus written sentences, paragraphs or narratives (Spitsyna et al., 2006; Jobard et al., 2007; Lindenberg and Scheef, 2007;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chee et al., 2000 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Spitsyna et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Baldassano et al., 2017 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    A coder who did not know the study's purpose divided the narrative into 22 events and marked whether each participant's recall described each event.

    “An independent coder blind to the aim of the study segmented the narrative into 22 separate events and then coded each subject’s recall for a description of each event.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    To align the two stimuli in time, the animation was divided into 76 brief events and the spoken story was edited so each event began at the same moment, as in earlier studies.

    “Thus, in order to time-lock the two stimuli, the Movie animation was segmented into 76 short events or actions (e.g. child bounces balls, parent kisses child goodnight, child and friend make a plan). The raw Audio story was edited to match the onset of each event in the animation, following Regev et al. (2013) and Honey et al. (2012) (Fig. 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Regev et al. (2013) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Honey et al. (2012) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The default mode network regions of interest were derived from functional connectivity in an independent, previously published dataset.

    “These ROIs were defined using functional connectivity on previously published, independent data (Chen et al., 2016) where subjects were scanned in fMRI watching a movie.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chen et al., 2016 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The findings point to a set of high-level regions that track individual differences in narrative interpretation under naturalistic viewing and remain responsive across narrative modalities.

    “Together, these results suggest a network of highlevel regions that are not only sensitive to subtle individual differences in narrative interpretation during naturalistic conditions, but also resilient to large differences in the modality of the narrative.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall similarity, as measured by LSA, reflects similarity in narrative interpretation.
    • Rests on an assumption: Free recall descriptions capture subjects' interpretations of the narrative.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    SMG and DLPFC belong to a proposed FPCN subnetwork, FPCN-A, which has been shown to be more highly correlated with the DMN across various tasks.

    “In particular, both SMG and DLPFC are part of a proposed FPCN subnetwork, FPCN-A, that has been shown to be more highly correlated with DMN in a variety of tasks ranging from classic cognitive control tasks, resting state, social-cognitive tasks, and movie watching (Dixon et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dixon et al., 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The FPCN is highly, though heterogeneously, interconnected with the DMN.

    “The FPCN is highly, albeit heterogeneously, interconnected with the DMN (Spreng et al., 2010, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Spreng et al., 2010, 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The present findings are consistent with the DMN as a high-level global integrator and show that temporal patterns within the DMN are sensitive to idiosyncratic differences in narrative interpretation.

    “The present findings are therefore consistent with DMN as a high-level global integrator, and additionally demonstrates that the temporal patterns within the DMN are sensitive to idiosyncratic differences in narrative interpretation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The similarity of neural patterns elicited by similar interpretations of the same narrative in different forms (shapes versus words) demonstrates modality invariance and the strong social nature of the DMN.

    “The similarity between neural patterns elicited by similar interpretation of the same narrative communicated in different forms (shapes versus words) demonstrates the remarkable modality invariance and strong social nature of the default mode network.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Similarity between subjects' post-viewing descriptions (recall similarity) is a valid measure of similarity in their interpretation of the narrative.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The findings show that these DMN areas not only respond preferentially to animate films but also distinguish subtle differences in interpretations of dynamic social interactions.

    “We therefore show that these areas not only respond preferentially to animate films, but can discriminate between subtle differences in interpretations of dynamically occurring social interactions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Right posterior SMG and bilateral DLPFC are part of the frontoparietal control network (FPCN), which is implicated in cognitive control and decision-making.

    “Both of these regions are part of the frontoparietal control network (FPCN), which is widely implicated in cognitive control and decision-making processes (Vincent et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vincent et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The DMN sits at the top of a timescale processing hierarchy, integrating high-level information over minutes or longer.

    “Based on these findings, we have previously suggested that the DMN is situated at the top of a timescale processing hierarchy, integrating high-level information over minutes or more (Hasson et al., 2008; Lerner et al., 2011; Hasson & Honey, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hasson et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lerner et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hasson & Honey, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The DMN largely overlaps with the mentalizing network, which shows increased activity during thinking about other minds.

    “Notably, the DMN largely overlaps with the mentalizing network (Schilbach et al., 2008; Mars et al., 2012), regions of the brain that show increased activity while thinking about other minds.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Schilbach et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mars et al., 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In mentalizing tasks, animate shape movies produce greater activation than inanimate movies in DMN regions.

    “Greater activation was found during animate than inanimate movies in regions of DMN (Castelli et al., 2002; Vanderwal et al., 2008; Schurz et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Castelli et al., 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Vanderwal et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Schurz et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

34 of 34

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Free recall similarity, as measured by LSA, reflects similarity in narrative interpretation.

    “Here, we used LSA to measure similarity of subject recalls within and across the two stimuli.”
    “we first constructed a recall similarity matrix using LSA cosine similarity (see Section 2.5), which represents how similarly each pair of subjects interpreted the stimulus.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Free recall descriptions capture subjects' interpretations of the narrative.

    “Immediately following stimulus presentation, all subjects were asked to freely describe the stimulus. Based on textual analysis of these free recalls, we then compared recall similarity with neural similarity using both intersubject correlation analysis (ISC) and intersubject representational similarity analysis (RSA).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Similarity between subjects' post-viewing descriptions (recall similarity) is a valid measure of similarity in their interpretation of the narrative.

    “We found that the level of recall similarity was correlated with the level of neural similarity in PMC, right angular gyrus, right SMG, bilateral anterior STG, bilateral DMPFC, and bilateral DLPFC (q<.05, FDR corrected; Fig. 4).”
    “In ROI analyses, we found that interpretation similarity across modalities was significantly correlated with neural similarity across modalities in right DLPFC, PMC, and right angular gyrus (p<.05) with a trending correlation in left DLPC (p=.068) (Fig 5B).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The observed relationship between recall similarity and neural similarity is not primarily driven by differences in memory performance or attention/arousal.

    “Finally, it is possible that differences among the high- and low-recall similarity groups may better reflect differences in memory and performance on the recall task, rather than differences in interpretation.”
4 of 4

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?

  • Greater similarity in the interpretation of an ambiguous shape animation is associated with greater similarity in neural response in default mode network regions across participants.

    “Greater similarity in the interpretation of the ambiguous shape animation (as reported by each of the participants) was associated with greater similarity in neural response in DMN regions across participants.”

    From The default mode network: where the idiosyncratic self meets the shared social world (2021) · cites this paper as [37]

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(52) = 1.82, p = .073

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .073 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .075 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .073 · recomputed p = .075

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upt(52) = 1.82reported p = .073 · recomputed p = .075

    “t(52) = 1.82, p = .073”

  • Consistentt(781) = 22.7reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(781) = 22.7, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(34) = 0.11reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .913

    “t(34)=.11, p > .05”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 1.87reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .171

    “χ2(1)=1.87, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(34) = 0.25reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .804

    “t(34)=.25, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(304) = 0.69reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .491

    “t(304)=0.69, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(646) = 0.08reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .936

    “t(646)=0.08, p > .05”

7 of 7

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.

  • Cross-modal neural similarity is reported even for the low-similarity group

    Minor

    The discussion says significant cross-modal neural similarity occurred only when interpretations were shared, but the results report a significant cluster for the group whose recalls were least similar to the Audio group.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nguyen, M., Vanderwal, T., & Hasson, U.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Nguyen, Mai
ORCID
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
184
Pages
161-170
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.010
PMC
PMC6287615
OpenAlex
W2889716325
Semantic Scholar
470e9838223eaa20ad81a15076b686e8e1749275
Cited by
304
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
37.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (5DP1HD091948-02, 1RO1MH112566-01)
  • The Allison Family Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
narrative interpretation, default mode network, frontoparietal network, modality invariance, abstract animation, individual differences
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Photic Stimulation, Comprehension, Pattern Recognition, Physiological, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-05.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-05.

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