The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 43 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 43 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Neural results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Behavioral results
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While recall length did not differ between groups (t(52) = 1.82, p=.073)”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Behavioral results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A t-test revealed significant differences between these two ISC maps in bilateral angular gyrus, PMC, and left MTG (Fig 3B, left).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Neural results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Behavioral results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Audio subjects and the 18 Movie subjects with the most similar recalls to the Audio subjects showed significantly correlated neural responses in linguistic areas, including posterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS) and inferior temporal gyrus (ITG).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Neural results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In ROI analyses, the 18 subjects with more similar recalls, across modalities, had greater ISC in right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and PMC (p<.05; Fig 3B, upper right).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Neural results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“We found that the more similarly two people interpreted the social events depicted in an ambiguous animation, the more similar their neural responses were in a subset of DMN regions, including PMC, right angular gyrus, bilateral STG, and DMPFC.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“In addition, we observed this relationship in regions outside the DMN, including more anterior right SMG and bilateral DLPFC.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Neural results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Audio subjects recalled more events than Movie subjects (t(52, 3.19, p=.0024).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Behavioral results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on the average recall similarity to each other, the Movie subjects were split into two equal sized groups (N=18 each group): a “high similarity” group (mean similarity = 0.745, std = 0.071, range = 0.58–0.89) and a “low similarity” group (mean similarity = 0.528, std = 0.123, range = .26-.81).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Behavioral results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 21
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Behavioral results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 13Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Behavioral results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Neural results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Behavioral results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Behavioral results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Neural results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Similarity between subjects' post-viewing descriptions (recall similarity) is a valid measure of similarity in their interpretation of the narrative.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Behavioral results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 18Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Discussion
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Semantic similarity measured by LSA has been shown to have human-like performance (Landauer et al., 1998).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Methods > Behavioral data analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Landauer et al., 1998 source
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Methods > Subjects
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 36Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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;”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Introduction
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Neural results
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The sample size for the Audio group was based on reliability analyses of sample size required to measure reliable ISC (Pajula and Tohka, 2016).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Methods > Subjects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pajula and Tohka, 2016
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 18Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Methods > MRI data analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simony et al., 2016 source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Methods > MRI data analysis
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § MRI data analysis · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Methods > MRI data analysis
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Following Honey et al. (2012), for between-condition analyses, we thus projected out the audio envelope from each subject’s neural response.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Methods > MRI data analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Honey et al. (2012) source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Results > Neural results
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects with excessive head motion (>3mm absolute movement) were removed from the sample.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Methods > MRI data analysis
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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;”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Discussion
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Methods > Behavioral data analysis
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Methods > Stimuli and experimental design
What the sources say
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Methods > MRI data analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen et al., 2016 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Discussion > Processing outside the DMN
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dixon et al., 2018 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The FPCN is highly, albeit heterogeneously, interconnected with the DMN (Spreng et al., 2010, 2012).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Discussion > Processing outside the DMN
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Spreng et al., 2010, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Discussion > Processing in the default mode network
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Similarity between subjects' post-viewing descriptions (recall similarity) is a valid measure of similarity in their interpretation of the narrative.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Discussion > Processing in the default mode network
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Discussion > Processing outside the DMN
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vincent et al., 2008 source
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Discussion > Processing in the default mode network
What the sources say
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Discussion > Processing in the default mode network
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses > Discussion > Processing in the default mode network
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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.”
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 the citing paper
“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
MinorThe 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
“t(52) = 1.82, p=.073”
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”
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
MinorThe 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.
“we found that subjects who watched the shapes animation and subjects who listened to the audio story had significantly correlated neural responses only when they shared interpretations of the narrative.”
“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).”
Citations
Cites
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
A default mode of brain function
Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.676 · Cited by 12,190
The Brain's Default Network: Anatomy, Function, and Relevance to Disease
Buckner, R. L., Andrews‐Hanna, J. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2008) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1196/annals.1440.011 · Cited by 9,761 · cited 2×
“Many of the regions in which we identify a relationship between interpretation similarity and neural similarity overlap substantially with the DMN (Raichle et al., 2001; Buckner et al., 2008).”
Spontaneous fluctuations in brain activity observed with functional magnetic resonance imaging
Fox, M. D., & Raichle, M. E. (2007) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2201 · Cited by 6,700
Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples
Nichols, T. E., & Holmes, A. P. (2002) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.1058 · Cited by 6,256
An introduction to latent semantic analysis
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/01638539809545028 · Cited by 4,880
Kleiner, M., Brainard, D. H., & Pelli, D. G. (2007) · MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · Cited by 3,602
Representational similarity analysis-connecting the branches of systems neuroscience
Kriegeskorte, N. (2008) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/neuro.06.004.2008 · Cited by 3,355
An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior
Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1416950 · Cited by 3,340
Situating the default-mode network along a principal gradient of macroscale cortical organization
Margulies, D. S., Ghosh, S. S., Goulas, A., Falkiewicz, M., Huntenburg, J. M., Langs, G., Bezgin, G., Eickhoff, S. B., Castellanos, F. X., Petrides, M., et al. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1608282113 · Cited by 2,321 · cited 1×
“Other work has additionally supported a role of the DMN as a high-level network that flexibly integrates information from many lower-level networks (Vatansever et al., 2015; Margulies et al., 2016; Vidaurre et al., 2017).”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–306 of 306
Naturalistic narrative listening reveals a core brain network for detecting moral informationPreprint
Klincewicz, M., & Collin, S. H. P. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.09.04.749401
Zhou, S., Xu, X., Zhou, F., He, X., Zhai, Y., Long, Y., Lei, Y., Li, H., & Lu, C. (2026) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2026.122234
Park, J., Emery, L. F., & Leong, Y. C. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.09.11.751017
Bai, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2026) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2026.150594
Kawahata, K., Wang, J., Blanc, A., Maeda, N., Nishimoto, S., & Nishida, S. (2026) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2026.122312 · Cited by 2
Language and communication in social cognition
Votinov, M. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-34080-2.00003-2
Metadata
- Authors
- Nguyen, M., Vanderwal, T., & Hasson, U.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nguyen, Mai
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 184
- Pages
- 161-170
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- FWCI
- 37.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (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
