The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 42 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Repetition suppression of ventromedial prefrontal activity during judgments of self and others
Open accessAbstract
One useful strategy for inferring others' mental states (i.e., mentalizing) may be to use one's own thoughts, feelings, and desires as a proxy for those of other people. Such self-referential accounts of social cognition are supported by recent neuroimaging observations that a single brain region, ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vMPFC), is engaged both by tasks that require introspections about self and by tasks that require inferences about the minds of others perceived to be similar to self. To test whether people automatically refer to their own mental states when considering those of a similar other, we examined repetition-related suppression of vMPFC response during self-reflections that followed either an initial reflection about self or a judgment of another person. Consistent with the hypothesis that perceivers spontaneously engage in self-referential processing when mentalizing about particular individuals, vMPFC response was suppressed when self-reflections followed either an initial reflection about self or a judgment of a similar, but not a dissimilar, other. These results suggest that thinking about the mind of another person may rely importantly on reference to one's own mental characteristics.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Using fMRI repetition suppression, the authors found that ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vMPFC) activity during self-reflection was suppressed after either a prior self-reflection or a judgment about a similar other, but not after a judgment about a dissimilar other. This suggests that mentalizing about similar others may spontaneously recruit self-referential processing.
Key findings
- In 13 participants, vMPFC response to self-reflections was significantly suppressed when self-reflection followed an initial self-reflection (self-after-self) and when it followed a judgment of a similar other (self-after-similar), but not when it followed a judgment of a dissimilar other (self-after-dissimilar).
- Self-after-dissimilar judgments showed a significant increase in vMPFC response over baseline [t(12) = 4.75, P < 0.0005] and were significantly greater than self-after-self and self-after-similar trials (all P values < 0.008).
- Self-after-similar trials showed nearly indistinguishable repetition suppression from self-after-self trials for identical judgments [t(12) = 0.06, P > 0.95; different judgments, P > 0.11].
- A separate behavioral study (n = 14) found participants were faster to self-reflect after judging a similar other (M = 1,990 ms) than a dissimilar other (M = 2,079 ms) [t(13) = 2.84, P < 0.02].
Methods
- fMRI study: 13 right-handed native English speakers (8 male; mean age 20.7 years, range 19–23) completed an opinion-judging task with 240 paired prime-self trials and 90 singleton trials, followed by an explicit self-reference task (100 trials, self vs. Bush).
- Primes were self, a liberal target manipulated as similar, or a conservative target manipulated as dissimilar; half the paired trials used the identical opinion question across phases and half used a different question.
- fMRI data were collected on a 3 Tesla Siemens Trio scanner and analyzed in SPM99 using random-effects analyses; vMPFC ROIs were defined from self > other contrasts, and repetition suppression was indexed by subtracting singleton-trial responses from corresponding paired prime-self trials.
Limitations
- The paper states that exactly how perceivers determine whether someone is sufficiently similar to justify self-referential mentalizing remains an open question, as does characterization of the cognitive processes supporting mentalizing about dissimilar others.
- The paper states that secondary analyses subconditionalizing by same vs. different behavioral response were based on a small subset of data with reduced power, and that it remains unclear whether less repetition suppression occurs when a different question is asked about self and a similar other.
- Evident from the text: the fMRI sample was small (n = 13) and the supporting behavioral sample was also small (n = 14), limiting power and generalizability.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
28 Own result · 13 Not checked yet · 12 Own interpretation · 8 Own method · 4 No basis given
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
“Indeed, self-after-dissimilar judgments were associated with a significant increase in vMPFC response over baseline [ t (12) = 4.75, P < 0.0005].”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Consistent with earlier studies (15-18), a single region was obtained from the random effects contrast of self > other trials located in vMPFC (Fig. 1).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Consistent with this prediction, just as for self-after-self judgments, vMPFC response to selfreflections was substantially suppressed when participants reported their opinion immediately after judging a similar other.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Likewise, participants rated the liberal target to be more similar to self ( M = 4.80 on a 7-point scale) than the conservative target ( M = 3.00; P < 0.02).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Importantly, no difference was observed in the level of repetition suppression during self-after-self trials as a function of whether participants responded to the identical or a different opinion question on the second phase of the trial [ t (12) = 0.50, P > 0.62].”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“This response also was significantly greater than for self-after-self and self-after-similar trials for both identical and different trials (all P values < 0.008)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Consistent with this prediction, self-after-self judgments were associated with a robust suppression of activity in vMPFC.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 response in this region both to self-singletons ( M = 0.06) and to similar singletons ( M =-0.05) was significantly greater than the vMPFC response to dissimilar singletons ( M = -0.11; both P s < 0.04).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Consistent with the notion that one's own preferences may more strongly inform judgments of those perceived to be similar to oneself, judgments of similar others were significantly closer to one's self-reported opinions than were judgments of dissimilar others [ M s = 0.73 vs. 1.12, respectively; t (12) = 3.25, P < 0.01].”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Finally, pairwise t tests conducted between all trials across repetition (e.g., self-after-self-identical vs. self-afterself-different) revealed a significant difference only for selfafter-similar trials in the vMPFC region defined from the explicit self-reference task ( P < 0.03) (Fig. 1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 15
- Probably not a substantial claim. 19
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 identical judgments, self-after-similar trials were associated with nearly indistinguishable levels of repetition suppression as for self-after-self judgments [ t (12) = 0.06, P > 0.95; for different judgments, P > 0.11].”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“Importantly, the pattern of repetition suppression within this alternative vMPFC ROI was indistinguishable from that in the region defined by the explicit self-reference task (with the exception of self-after-similardifferent trials, as detailed below).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“Second, no simple effect was observed between same versus different responses for either self-after-similar or self-after-dissimilar trials (both P s > 0.26)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“Likewise, identical and different judgment pairs both differed significantly from self-singletons (both P s < 0.05).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“Indeed, as displayed in Fig. 1, although vMPFC response to self-reflections was typically greater than baseline when participants self-reflected in isolation (i.e., for selfsingleton trials), activity in this region was significantly reduced during self-reflections that followed an initial self report.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“That is, whereas self-reflections were associated with a significant activation of vMPFC after judgments of a dissimilar other, the response of this region was equivalently suppressed during self-reflections that followed judgments of a similar other as during those that followed initial self-reflections”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“As for self-after-self trials, the response to self-after-similar judgments was negative-going and did not differ significantly from baseline activity (repeated, P > 0.19; novel, P > 0.93).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“First, a region of vMPFC was identified from the comparison of self > other (i.e., self trials vs. Bush trials). In addition, a second vMPFC ROI was defined from within the opinion-judging task from the comparison of self > other by using singleton trials only (i.e., self-singletons > similar singletons plus dissimilar singletons).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These techniques rely on an effect known as ''repetition suppression,'' the observation that neural activity in stimulus-sensitive brain regions is typically reduced when a stimulus is repeated (19).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One possible solution to the problem of mentalizing may be found in the use of one's own thoughts and feelings as a basis for understanding those of others (6-9).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6]
- Not checked yetcites [7]
- Not checked yetcites [8]
- Not checked yetcites [9]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although the precise physiological basis of repetition suppression has yet to be fully elucidated, researchers generally agree that the suppressed fMRI BOLD response to repeated stimuli must reflect changes in the firing properties of neurons that subserve the processing of a stimulus, and that suppression across two stimuli indicates that the same (or at least a largely overlapping) population of”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] source
- Not checked yetcites [30] Grafton ST, Hamilton AFdC (2007) Hum Mov Sci 26:590-616.
- Not checked yetcites [31] Grill-Spector K, Malach R (2001) Acta Psychol ( Amst ) 107:293-321.
- Not checked yetcites [32] Sawamura H, Orban GA, Vogels R (2006) Neuron 49:307-318.
- Not checked yetcites [33] Wiggs CL, Martin A (1998) Curr Opin Neurobiol 8:227-233.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“H umans consistently explain the behavior of those around them by appealing to others' mental states; that is, their thoughts and feelings, likes and dislikes, current goals and intentions, and enduring dispositions and personality traits (1).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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 such techniques integrate neural activity across hundreds of thousands of neurons, activation of the same brain voxel by different tasks might occur because each activates distinct, but neighboring or interdigitated, neuronal populations.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
“That the same brain region appears to subserve introspection about oneself and mental state inferences about similar others suggests that an overlapping set of cognitive processes carries out these two otherwise disparate tasks”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“Thus, the strategy of using one's own mental states as a basis for understanding those of others should be limited to situations in which one can assume that another person generally thinks and feels similarly to oneself.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such findings reinforce the emerging view that social cognition, rather than being composed of a single, all-purpose module for mentalizing (35), relies on a number of different strategies for mentalizing that vary with the particulars of the social environment (36-39).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] Leslie AM, Friedman O, German TP (2004) Trends Cogn Sci 8:528-533. source
- Not checked yetcites [36] Ames DR (2004) J Pers Soc Psychol 87:340-353.
- Not checked yetcites [37] Ames DR (2004) J Pers Soc Psychol 87:573-585.
- Not checked yetcites [38] Macrae CN, Bodenhausen GV, Milne AB (1994) J Pers Soc Psychol 66:37-47.
- Not checked yetcites [39]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“These results underscore the tight link between thinking about oneself and thinking about other people, suggesting that selfreferential processing may be triggered spontaneously when considering the mental states of others.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“These characteristics of repetition suppression render it well suited for examining the hypothesis that mentalizing about like-minded individuals draws on the same cognitive processes as introspecting about one's own mental characteristics.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
“This interpretation of repetition suppression suggests the intriguing possibility that the population of vMPFC neurons subserving introspections about self serve double-duty by also participating in representing the minds of similar others.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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 that activity in vMPFC, a brain region widely acknowledged to subserve selfreferential thought, can be suppressed either by repeatedly introspecting about the self or by introspecting about self immediately after judging a similar, but not a dissimilar, other.”
- Also stated in: § Repetition suppression of ventromedial prefrontal activity during judgments of self and others · plain
“Consistent with the hypothesis that perceivers spontaneously engage in self-referential processing when mentalizing about particular individuals, vMPFC response was suppressed when selfreflections followed either an initial reflection about self or a judgment of a similar, but not a dissimilar, other.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Repetition suppression of ventromedial prefrontal activity during judgments of self and others · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Most proposals regarding the physiological basis of repetition suppression conclude that the likely basis of the effect is that the same, or largely overlapping, population of neurons subserves the processing of two distinct stimuli.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] source
- Not checked yetcites [33] Wiggs CL, Martin A (1998) Curr Opin Neurobiol 8:227-233.
- Not checked yetcites [34] Henson RN, Goshen-Gottstein Y, Ganel T, Otten LJ, Quayle A, Rugg MD (2003) Cereb Cortex 13:793-805.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
“When another person is assumed to be sufficiently similar to self, perceivers appear to make use of the same processes deployed for introspecting about their own mental characteristics, but decline to do so for others assumed to be dissimilar from self.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“In addition, a second vMPFC ROI was defined from trials within the opinion-judging task by contrasting self-singleton trials to both similar- and dissimilar-singleton trials (i.e., self > other).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
“Targets were always the same sex as the participant, and both the pairing of particular faces to descriptions and the order of presentation (liberal target first, conservative target first) were randomized across participants.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It 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
“Indeed, that our minds naturally segregate dissimilar from similar others and then mentalize in a distinct way about those perceived to be different from self may be one of the factors that gives rise to aspects of outgroup prejudice, such as stereotypes about members of various racial, ethnic, or cultural backgrounds.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“Opinion questions referred to a range of personal issues that were pretested to be unrelated to political orientation (e.g., ''dislike mushrooms on pizza?''; ''enjoy crossword puzzles?''; ''like to be the center of attention?''; ''generally see things from many perspectives?''; ''enjoy helping friends with problems?''; and ''like impressionist artwork?'').”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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 parallel analysis of response time in the fMRI experiment was precluded by the abbreviated length of trials necessitated by rapid event-related scanning, such that participants were typically near the ceiling allowed by the response window.)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
“One additional participant, who was being treated for depression at the time of the study, was excluded from analysis.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In this data collection, we made use of a behavioral analogue of repetition suppression, wherein repeated processing results in speeded performance on subsequent trials of the same kind (i.e., repetition priming) (33).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Wiggs CL, Martin A (1998) Curr Opin Neurobiol 8:227-233.
plaindirectn = 14- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
“Somewhat ironically, however, because one's own mental states may serve as an appropriate proxy only for those whom we assume think and feel like we do, human social cognition may possess an intrinsic bias to discriminate between those perceived to be similar, like-minded members of one's ingroup and those perceived to be dissimilar, exotic others.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This choice of other was guided by earlier studies of self-referential processing, which have typically used the current head of state (a familiar, but not personally known, other) as a comparison to self-judgments (15, 16, 41).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] source
- Not checked yetcites [16]
- Not checked yetcites [41] Rogers TB, Kuiper NA, Kirker WS (1977) J Pers Soc Psychol 35:677-688.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Little is known about how exactly one successfully gains insight into the inner workings of another's mind.
“little is known about how exactly one successfully gains insight into the inner workings of another's mind.”
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
“Decreased signal with repeated stimulus presentation has been used as a tool for structure-function brain mapping, as it is thought that signal decreases reflect neuronal populations that represent and detect change in stimulus features”
From Feeling left out or just surprised? Neural correlates of social exclusion and overinclusion in adolescence (2020) · cites this paper as Jenkins, Macrae, & Mitchell, 2008
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.
- Consistentt(12) = 3.25reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .007
“t (12) = 3.25, p < .01”
- Consistentt(12) = 0.5reported p > .62 · recomputed p = .626
“t (12) = 0.50, p > .62”
- Consistentt(12) = 4.75reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001
“t (12) = 4.75, p < .0005”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
(1954) · Cited by 15,935
The Handbook of Social Psychology
Gravatt, A. E., Lindzey, G. E., & Aronson, F. (1969) · The Family Coordinator · doi:10.2307/582242 · Cited by 12,518
Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00076512 · Cited by 8,743
Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind” ?
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8 · Cited by 8,599
Social psychology of intergroup relations
Tajfel, H. (1982) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 · Cited by 7,949
The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition
Tomasello, M. (2009) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvjsf4jc · Cited by 6,368
Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 · Cited by 4,567
(1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,269
Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition
Amodio, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (2006) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1884 · Cited by 3,782
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- DL Ames, AC Jenkins, MR Banaji, JP Mitchell Psychol Sci, in press. (2008).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The social neuroscience of empathy
Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04418.x · Cited by 1,981
Zaki, J. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0037679 · Cited by 923
Functional neuroimaging of autobiographical memory
Cabeza, R., & St Jacques, P. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.02.005 · Cited by 736
How we know our own minds: The relationship between mindreading and metacognition
Carruthers, P. (2009) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x09000545 · Cited by 610
Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism.
Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J.-H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0020240 · Cited by 587
Self-Evaluation of Decision-Making: A General Bayesian Framework for Metacognitive Computation
Fleming, S. M., & Daw, N. D. (2017) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000045 · Cited by 584
van der Meer, L., Costafreda, S., Aleman, A., & David, A. S. (2010) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.12.004 · Cited by 520
Neuroscience of Self and Self-Regulation
Heatherton, T. F. (2010) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131616 · Cited by 476
Inferences about mental states
Mitchell, J. P. (2009) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0318 · Cited by 387
Self-citationNeural correlates of depth of strategic reasoning in medial prefrontal cortex
Coricelli, G., & Nagel, R. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · doi:10.1073/pnas.0807721106 · Cited by 385
Atypical neural self-representation in autism
Lombardo, M. V., Chakrabarti, B., Bullmore, E. T., Sadek, S. A., Pasco, G., Wheelwright, S. J., Suckling, J., & Baron‐Cohen, S. (2009) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awp306 · Cited by 393
Shared Neural Circuits for Mentalizing about the Self and Others
Lombardo, M. V., Chakrabarti, B., Bullmore, E. T., Wheelwright, S. J., Sadek, S. A., Suckling, J., & Baron‐Cohen, S. (2009) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21287 · Cited by 373
The Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations
Cikara, M., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2014) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691614527464 · Cited by 381
The Role of the Human Prefrontal Cortex in Social Cognition and Moral Judgment
Forbes, C. E., & Grafman, J. H. (2010) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-153230 · Cited by 331
Murray, R. J., Schaer, M., & Debbané, M. (2012) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.12.013 · Cited by 319
Neural substrates of the self‐memory system: New insights from a meta‐analysis
Martinelli, P., Sperduti, M., & Piolino, P. (2013) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.22008 · Cited by 281
How do we empathize with someone who is not like us? A functional magnetic resonance imaging study.
Lamm, C., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2010) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21186 · Cited by 278
Lombardo, M. V., Chakrabarti, B., Bullmore, E. T., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.067 · Cited by 275
Motor inhibition in hysterical conversion paralysis
Cojan, Y., Waber, L., Carruzzo, A., & Vuilleumier, P. O. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.023 · Cited by 237
An Agent Independent Axis for Executed and Modeled Choice in Medial Prefrontal Cortex
Nicolle, A., Klein-Flügge, M. C., Hunt, L. T., Vlaev, I., Dolan, R. J., & Behrens, T. E. J. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.07.023 · Cited by 217
Self-development: Integrating cognitive, socioemotional, and neuroimaging perspectives
Pfeifer, J. H., & Peake, S. J. (2011) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2011.07.012 · Cited by 246
Repetition suppression: a means to index neural representations using BOLD?
Barron, H. C., Garvert, M. M., & Behrens, T. E. J. (2016) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0355 · Cited by 229
Vaccaro, A. G., & Fleming, S. M. (2018) · Brain and Neuroscience Advances · doi:10.1177/2398212818810591 · Cited by 218
Schnell, K., Bluschke, S., Konradt, B., & Walter, H. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.024 · Cited by 217
The representation of self and person knowledge in the medial prefrontal cortex
Wagner, D. D., Haxby, J. V., & Heatherton, T. F. (2012) · WIREs Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.1183 · Cited by 201
Social psychology as a natural kind
Mitchell, J. P. (2009) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.03.008 · Cited by 210
Self-citationNeural correlates of anchoring-and-adjustment during mentalizing
Tamir, D., & Mitchell, J. P. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1003242107 · Cited by 193
Self-citationBrain Mechanisms of the Placebo Effect: An Affective Appraisal Account
Ashar, Y. K., Chang, L. J., & Wager, T. D. (2017) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093015 · Cited by 201
Equitable decision making is associated with neural markers of intrinsic value
Zaki, J., & Mitchell, J. P. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1112324108 · Cited by 193
Self-citationSociocultural patterning of neural activity during self-reflection
Ma, Y., Bang, D., Wang, C., Allen, M., Frith, C., Roepstorff, A., & Han, S. (2012) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nss103 · Cited by 188
Jenkins, A. C., & Mitchell, J. P. (2010) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp109 · Cited by 183
Self-citationMedial prefrontal cortex subserves diverse forms of self-reflection
Jenkins, A. C., & Mitchell, J. P. (2010) · Social Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/17470919.2010.507948 · Cited by 184
Self-citationSteinbeis, N. (2016) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0074 · Cited by 173
Activation of Anterior Insula during Self-Reflection
Modinos, G., Ormel, J., & Aleman, A. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004618 · Cited by 172
Chang, L. J., Jolly, E., Cheong, J. H., Rapuano, K. M., Greenstein, N., Chen, P.-H. A., & Manning, J. R. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf7129 · Cited by 177
Future trends in Neuroimaging: Neural processes as expressed within real-life contexts
Hasson, U., & Honey, C. J. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.004 · Cited by 171
Kumaran, D., Banino, A., Blundell, C., Hassabis, D., & Dayan, P. (2016) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.10.052 · Cited by 163
Growing up blind does not change the neural bases of Theory of Mind
Bedny, M., Pascual‐Leone, Á., & Saxe, R. R. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0900010106 · Cited by 154
Anchoring and adjustment during social inferences.
Tamir, D., & Mitchell, J. P. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0028232 · Cited by 149
Self-citationNeural self-representation in autistic women and association with ‘compensatory camouflaging’
Lai, M.-C., Lombardo, M. V., Chakrabarti, B., Ruigrok, A. N., Bullmore, E. T., Suckling, J., Auyeung, B., Happé, F., Szatmari, P., Baron-Cohen, S., et al. (2019) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361318807159 · Cited by 134
Dixon, M. L., & Kalina Christoff, A. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051637 · Cited by 152
Medial Prefrontal Cortex Predicts Intertemporal Choice
Mitchell, J. P., Schirmer, J., Ames, D. L., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21479 · Cited by 146
Self-citationCivai, C., Crescentini, C., Rustichini, A., & Rumiati, R. I. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.037 · Cited by 133
Learning-Induced Plasticity in Medial Prefrontal Cortex Predicts Preference Malleability
Garvert, M. M., Moutoussis, M., Kurth-Nelson, Z. L., Behrens, T. E. J., & Dolan, R. J. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.033 · Cited by 128
Neural correlates of pragmatic language comprehension in autism spectrum disorders
Tesink, C. M. J. Y., Buitelaar, J. K., Petersson, K. M., van der Gaag, R. J., Kan, C. C., Tendolkar, I., & Peter Hagoort, A. (2009) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awp103 · Cited by 141
Dissociable neural correlates of stereotypes and other forms of semantic knowledge
Contreras, J. M., Banaji, M. R., & Mitchell, J. P. (2011) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsr053 · Cited by 133
Self-citationAtique, B., Erb, M., Gharabaghi, A., Grodd, W., & Anders, S. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.12.036 · Cited by 116
Babies and Brains: Habituation in Infant Cognition and Functional Neuroimaging
Chun, M. M. (2008) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/neuro.09.016.2008 · Cited by 130
Corradi‐Dell’Acqua, C., Hofstetter, C., & Vuilleumier, P. O. (2013) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nst097 · Cited by 116
St. Jacques, P. L., Conway, M. A., Lowder, M. W., & Cabeza, R. (2011) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21518 · Cited by 113
Neural representations of close others in collectivistic brains
Wang, G., Mao, L., Ma, Y., Yang, X., Cao, J., Liu, X., Wang, J., Wang, X., & Han, S. (2011) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsr002 · Cited by 106
Unraveling the paradox of the autistic self
Lombardo, M. V., & Baron‐Cohen, S. (2010) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.45 · Cited by 104
I feel what you feel if you are similar to me
Serino, A., Giovagnoli, G., & Làdavas, E. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004930 · Cited by 94
The Default Network Distinguishes Construals of Proximal versus Distal Events
Tamir, D., & Mitchell, J. P. (2011) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00009 · Cited by 92
Self-citationViewing one’s own face being touched modulates tactile perception: An fMRI study
Cardini, F., Costantini, M., Galati, G., Romani, G. L., Làdavas, E., & Serino, A. (2011) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21484 · Cited by 92
Majdandžić, J., Amashaufer, S., Hummer, A., Windischberger, C., & Lamm, C. (2016) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.003 · Cited by 90
Bruneau, E., Dufour, N. P., & Saxe, R. R. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0293 · Cited by 91
Decoding the invisible forces of social connections
Cacioppo, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012) · Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnint.2012.00051 · Cited by 87
Contributions of frontopolar cortex to judgments about self, others and relations
Raposo, A., Vicens, L., Clithero, J. A., Dobbins, I. G., & Huettel, S. A. (2010) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsq033 · Cited by 88
Repetition-related reductions in neural activity reveal component processes of mental simulation
Szpunar, K. K., St. Jacques, P. L., Robbins, C. A., Wig, G. S., & Schacter, D. L. (2014) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nst035 · Cited by 79
“…conducted within the domain of perceptual processing, the technique has been extended to identify processes involved in making self-other judgments (Jenkins et al., 2008), and more recently to distinguish between novel and repeated future event simulations (V. van Mulukom et al., submitted for…”
Brain circuits implicated in psychogenic paralysis in conversion disorders and hypnosis
Vuilleumier, P. (2014) · Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.neucli.2014.01.003 · Cited by 82
Piva, M., Velnoskey, K. R., Jia, R., Nair, A. R., Levy, I., & Chang, S. W. C. (2019) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.44939 · Cited by 81
Geraci, A., Surian, L., Ferraro, M., & Cantagallo, A. (2010) · Brain Injury · doi:10.3109/02699052.2010.487477 · Cited by 81
Lombardo, M., Auyeung, B., Holt, R., Waldman, J., Ruigrok, A., Mooney, N., Bullmore, E., Baron-Cohen, S., & Kundu, P. (2015) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.07.022 · Cited by 99
Cloutier, J., Kelley, W. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (2010) · Social Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/17470911003693622 · Cited by 77
Moran, J. M., Lee, S. M., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2010) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21580 · Cited by 75
Morin, A., & Hamper, B. (2012) · The Open Neuroimaging Journal · doi:10.2174/1874440001206010078 · Cited by 80
The Neural Bases of Directed and Spontaneous Mental State Attributions to Group Agents
Jenkins, A. C., Dodell‐Feder, D., Saxe, R. R., & Knobe, J. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105341 · Cited by 74
Self-citationDifferential involvement of the posterior temporal cortex in mentalizing but not perspective taking
David, N., Aumann, C., Santos, N. S., Bewernick, B. H., Eickhoff, S. B., Newen, A., Shah, N. J., Fink, G. R., & Vogeley, K. T. (2008) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsn023 · Cited by 72
Neural Mechanisms for Accepting and Rejecting Artificial Social Partners in the Uncanny Valley
Pütten, A. M. R.-V. D., Krämer, N. C., Maderwald, S., Brand, M., & Fabian Grabenhorst, B. (2019) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2956-18.2019 · Cited by 79
The use of repetition suppression paradigms in developmental cognitive neuroscience
Nordt, M., Hoehl, S., & Weigelt, S. (2016) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.002 · Cited by 91
Reduced self-referential neural response during intergroup competition predicts competitor harm
Cikara, M., Jenkins, A. C., Dufour, N., & Saxe, R. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.080 · Cited by 67
Self-citationDecoding “us” and “them”: Neural representations of generalized group concepts.
Cikara, M., Bavel, J. J. V., Ingbretsen, Z. A., & Lau, T. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000287 · Cited by 69
Neural adaptation to faces reveals racial outgroup homogeneity effects in early perception
Hughes, B., Camp, N. P., Gomez, J., Natu, V. S., Kalanit Grill-spector, A., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1822084116 · Cited by 61
Traits are represented in the medial prefrontal cortex: an fMRI adaptation study
Ma, N., Baetens, K., Vandekerckhove, M. M. P., Kestemont, J., Fias, W., & Overwalle, F. V. (2013) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nst098 · Cited by 63
Self, cortical midline structures and the resting state: Implications for Alzheimer’s disease
Weiler, M., Northoff, G., Damasceno, B. P., & Balthazar, M. L. F. (2016) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.05.028 · Cited by 60
Me, Myself and My Insula: An Oasis in the Forefront of Self-Consciousness
Tisserand, A., Philippi, N., Botzung, A., & Blanc, F. (2023) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology12040599 · Cited by 67
Neural representations of the multidimensional self in the cortical midline structures
Feng, C., Yan, X., Huang, W., Han, S., & Ma, Y. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.018 · Cited by 53
Bréchet, L., Grivaz, P., Gauthier, B., & Blanke, O. (2018) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00270 · Cited by 59
Brain Coding of Social Network Structure
Peer, M., Hayman, M., Tamir, B., & Arzy, S. (2021) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2641-20.2021 · Cited by 52
Motivation to do Well Enhances Responses to Errors and Self-Monitoring
Bengtsson, S., Lau, H. C., & Passingham, R. E. (2008) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn127 · Cited by 53
The person within: memory codes for persons and traits using fMRI repetition suppression
Heleven, E., & Overwalle, F. V. (2015) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsv100 · Cited by 51
Empathy and visual perspective-taking performance
Mattan, B. D., Rotshtein, P., & Quinn, K. A. (2016) · Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/17588928.2015.1085372 · Cited by 52
People represent their own mental states more distinctly than those of others
Thornton, M. A., Weaverdyck, M. E., Mildner, J. N., & Tamir, D. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10083-6 · Cited by 52
Predicting human behavior toward members of different social groups
Jenkins, A. C., Karashchuk, P., Zhu, L., & Hsu, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1719452115 · Cited by 58
Self-citationSocial structure learning in human anterior insula
Lau, T., Gershman, S. J., & Cikara, M. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.53162 · Cited by 53
Cardini, F., Tajadura‐Jiménez, A., Serino, A., & Manos Tsakiris, A. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0031049 · Cited by 49
Autistic empathy toward autistic others
Komeda, H., Kosaka, H., Saito, D. N., Mano, Y., Jung, M., Fujii, T., Yanaka, H. T., Munesue, T., Ishitobi, M., Sato, M., et al. (2014) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsu126 · Cited by 51
The neural substrates of person perception: Spontaneous use of financial and moral status knowledge
Cloutier, J., Ambady, N., Meagher, T., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2012) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.06.010 · Cited by 58
Will, G., Moutoussis, M., Womack, P. M., Bullmore, E. T., Goodyer, I. M., Fonagy, P., Jones, P. B., Rutledge, R. B., & Dolan, R. J. (2020) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-020-0702-4 · Cited by 52
Tan, K. M., Daitch, A. L., Pinheiro‐Chagas, P., Fox, K. C. R., Parvizi, J., & Lieberman, M. D. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29510-2 · Cited by 49
Bruchmann, K., Koopmann‐Holm, B., & Scherer, A. M. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202101 · Cited by 47
Gowen, E., & Poliakoff, E. (2012) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0389-5 · Cited by 48
Contributions of subregions of the prefrontal cortex to the theory of mind and decision making
Xi, C., Zhu, Y., Niu, C., Zhu, C., Lee, T. M. C., Tian, Y., & Wang, K. (2010) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2010.09.031 · Cited by 46
Hughes, B., & Beer, J. S. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.011 · Cited by 46
Wagner, D. D., Chavez, R. S., & Broom, T. W. (2018) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.1482 · Cited by 46
Developmental Differences in the Control of Action Selection by Social Information
Dumontheil, I., Hillebrandt, H., Apperly, I. A., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2012) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00268 · Cited by 44
Broom, T. W., Chavez, R. S., & Wagner, D. D. (2021) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsab021 · Cited by 43
Rapid communication: Physical self-similarity enhances the gaze-cueing effect
Hungr, C. J., & Hunt, A. R. (2012) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.690769 · Cited by 45
Stanley, J., Gowen, E., & Miall, R. C. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.025 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Jenkins, A. C., Macrae, C. N., & Mitchell, J. P.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- University of Aberdeen (GB)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2008-03-18
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 4507-4512
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC2393803
- OpenAlex
- W2019725315
- Semantic Scholar
- 5ea2bc62c96153fceba947fb5fb56ed8abd264b4
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 101
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 25
- FWCI
- 40.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0642448)
- Centre d'Imagerie BioMédicale
- Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital
- National Center for Research Resources (P41-RR-14075, P41RR014075)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- ventromedial prefrontal cortex, repetition suppression, mentalization, self-referential processing, social cognition, self-reflection, self-other similarity, theory of mind
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Behavior, Ego, Female, Humans, Judgment, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Prefrontal Cortex
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 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (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
