Cited by 414Action Observation and SynchronizationChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFace Recognition and Perception

What you believe versus what you think they believe: a neuroimaging study of conceptual perspective‐taking

Ruby, Perrine, Decety, Jean·2003·European Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Social communication requires shared representations as well as a cognitive flexibility for successful interactions between self and other. What neural mechanisms underlie the ability to distinguish between our own perspective vs. the perspective of others at a conceptual level? In this PET study subjects who were medical students were asked according to the experimental conditions to respond to a list of health‐related questions, taking either their own perspective or the perspective of a ‘lay person’. Third‐person perspective as compared to first‐person perspective was associated with activation in the medial part of the superior frontal gyrus, in the left superior temporal sulcus, in the left temporal pole and in the right inferior parietal lobe. The reverse comparison revealed a specific activation in the postcentral gyrus for the first‐person conceptual perspective. This study provides congruent results at the conceptual level with previous studies investigating the neural correlates of self/other distinction at the motor level, and opens a new area of research in which conceptual cognition can be viewed in the continuity of motor cognition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02673.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The parietal and frontal cortices are associated with making the distinction between 1PP and 3PP at the motor, visuo-spatial, conceptual and emotional level.

    “Functional neuroimaging studies have revealed that the parietal and frontal cortices are associated with making the distinction between 1PP and 3PP at the motor (Ruby & Decety, 2001), visuo-spatial, (Vogeley et al., 2004), conceptual (Ruby & Decety, 2003) and emotional (Ruby & Decety, 2004) level.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ruby, P., & Decety, J.
Affiliations
Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Ruby, Perrine
Venue
European Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-06
Volume
17
Issue
11
Pages
2475-2480
ISSN
  • 0953-816X (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-9568
OpenAlex
W1990259414
Cited by
414
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 17
FWCI
31.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
self-other distinction, first-person perspective, third-person perspective, social cognition, shared representations, cognitive flexibility, superior frontal gyrus, superior temporal sulcus, temporal pole, inferior parietal lobule, postcentral gyrus, motor cognition, medical students
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Cognition, Communication, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Imagination, Interpersonal Relations, Functional Laterality, Male, Reaction Time, Thinking, Tomography, Emission-Computed

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