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
The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game.
Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1082976 · Cited by 3,375
Dehumanization: An integrative review
Haslam, N. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4 · Cited by 2,919
Buckner, R. L., & Carroll, D. C. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.004 · Cited by 2,691
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(07)00002-0 · Cited by 2,682
Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs
Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03210951 · Cited by 2,433
Remembering the past to imagine the future: the prospective brain
Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2007) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2213 · Cited by 2,394
People thinking about thinking peopleThe role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind”
Saxe, R., & Kanwisher, N. (2003) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00230-1 · Cited by 2,316
Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing
Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2003) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1218 · Cited by 2,306
Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects
Grill-Spector, K., Henson, R., & Martin, A. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.006 · Cited by 2,256
Spreng, R. N., Mar, R. A., & Kim, A. S. N. (2009) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.21029 · Cited by 2,143
Self-reference and the encoding of personal information.
Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.35.9.677 · Cited by 1,956
Addis, D. R., Wong, A. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2007) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.10.016 · Cited by 1,949
The Neural Basis of Mentalizing
Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2006) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.05.001 · Cited by 1,855
Social cognition and the brain: A meta-analysis
Van Overwalle, F. (2009) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20547 · Cited by 1,792
Interacting Minds--A Biological Basis
Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5445.1692 · Cited by 1,714
Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain
Martino, B. D., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1128356 · Cited by 1,687
Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study
Kelley, W. M., Macrae, C. N., Wyland, C. L., Caglar, S., Inati, S., & Heatherton, T. F. (2002) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/08989290260138672 · Cited by 1,606
Self-citationOther minds in the brain: a functional imaging study of “theory of mind” in story comprehension.
Fletcher, P. (1995) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00692-r · Cited by 1,522
Gordon, R. M. (1986) · Mind & Language · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.1986.tb00324.x · Cited by 1,409
Gallagher, H. L., Happé, F., Brunswick, N., Fletcher, P. C., Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2000) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(99)00053-6 · Cited by 1,394
Castelli, F., Happe, F. G. E., Frith, U., & Frith, C. (2000) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2000.0612 · Cited by 1,289
Kalanit Grill-spector, A., Kushnir, T., Edelman, S., Avidan, G., Itzchak, Y., & Malach, R. (1999) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80832-6 · Cited by 1,178
Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox.
Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.37 · Cited by 1,105
Self-citationfMR-adaptation: a tool for studying the functional properties of human cortical neurons
Kalanit Grill-spector, A., & Malach, R. (2001) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(01)00019-1 · Cited by 1,089
Dissociable Medial Prefrontal Contributions to Judgments of Similar and Dissimilar Others
Mitchell, J. P., Macrae, C. N., & Banaji, M. R. (2006) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.03.040 · Cited by 1,023
Self-citationDehumanizing the Lowest of the Low: Neuroimaging Responses to Extreme Out-Groups
Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x · Cited by 985
A functional imaging study of cooperation in two-person reciprocal exchange
McCabe, K., Houser, D., Ryan, L., Smith, V., & Trouard, T. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.211415698 · Cited by 984
Perceiving persons and groups.
Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.2.336 · Cited by 960
Neural correlates of self-reflection
Johnson, S. C. (2002) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awf181 · Cited by 930
Making sense of another mind: The role of the right temporo-parietal junction
SAXE, R., & WEXLER, A. (2005) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.02.013 · Cited by 926
Uniquely human social cognition
Saxe, R. (2006) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.001 · Cited by 919
Demb, J. B., Desmond, J., Wagner, A., Vaidya, C. J., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1995) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.15-09-05870.1995 · Cited by 911
Properties and mechanisms of perceptual priming
Wiggs, C. L., & Martin, A. D. (1998) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0959-4388(98)80144-x · Cited by 871
How we know--and sometimes misjudge--what others know: Imputing one's own knowledge to others.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.737 · Cited by 841
It's the Thought That Counts: Specific Brain Regions for One Component of Theory of Mind
Saxe, R., & Powell, L. J. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01768.x · Cited by 815
The Link between Social Cognition and Self-referential Thought in the Medial Prefrontal Cortex
Mitchell, J. P., Banaji, M. R., & Macrae, C. N. (2005) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/0898929055002418 · Cited by 806
Self-citationCore mechanisms in ‘theory of mind’
Leslie, A. M., Friedman, O., & German, T. P. (2004) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.001 · Cited by 800
Functional anatomical studies of explicit and implicit memory retrieval tasks
Buckner, R. L., Petersen, S., Ojemann, J. G., Miezin, F. M., Squire, L., & Raichle, M. E. (1995) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.15-01-00012.1995 · Cited by 678
The frontal lobes are necessary for `theory of mind'
Stuss, D. T. (2001) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/124.2.279 · Cited by 660
Neuroimaging Evidence for Dissociable Forms of Repetition Priming
Henson, R. N., Shallice, T., & Dolan, R. J. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5456.1269 · Cited by 649
Stern, C. E., Corkin, S., González, R. G., Guimarães, A. R., Baker, J. R., Jennings, P. J., Carr, C. A., Sugiura, R., Vedantham, V., & Rosen, B. R. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.16.8660 · Cited by 645
Guttenplan, S. (1975) · Cited by 632
Parallel Neuronal Mechanisms for Short-Term Memory
Miller, E. K., & Desimone, R. (1994) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.8290960 · Cited by 631
Medial prefrontal activity predicts memory for self
Macrae, C. N. (2004) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhh025 · Cited by 581
Self-citationImaging the Intentional Stance in a Competitive Game
Gallagher, H. L., Jack, A. I., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1117 · Cited by 570
The representation of stimulus familiarity in anterior inferior temporal cortex
Li, L., Miller, E. K., & Desimone, R. (1993) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1993.69.6.1918 · Cited by 539
Multiple levels of visual object constancy revealed by event-related fMRI of repetition priming
Vuilleumier, P. O., Henson, R. N., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2002) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn839 · Cited by 509
Evidence for a distributed hierarchy of action representation in the brain
Grafton, S. T., & de C. Hamilton, A. F. (2007) · Human Movement Science · doi:10.1016/j.humov.2007.05.009 · Cited by 503
Can Machines Think? Interaction and Perspective Taking with Robots Investigated via fMRI
Krach, S., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., Sagerer, G., Binkofski, F., & Kircher, T. T. J. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002597 · Cited by 490
Goel, V., Grafman, J., Sadato, N., & Hallett, M. (1995) · NeuroReport · doi:10.1097/00001756-199509000-00009 · Cited by 487
Activity in Right Temporo-Parietal Junction is Not Selective for Theory-of-Mind
Mitchell, J. P. (2008) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhm051 · Cited by 469
Self-citationCabeza, R. E. L., Dolcos, F., Graham, R., & Nyberg, L. H. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1063 · Cited by 466
Inside the Mind Reader's Tool Kit: Projection and Stereotyping in Mental State Inference.
Ames, D. R. (2004) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.340 · Cited by 447
Two Takes on the Social Brain: A Comparison of Theory of Mind Tasks
Gobbini, M. I., Koralek, A. C., Bryan, R. E., Montgomery, K. J., & Haxby, J. V. (2007) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1803 · Cited by 436
Distinct neural systems subserve person and object knowledge
Mitchell, J. P., Heatherton, T. F., & Macrae, C. N. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.232395699 · Cited by 407
Self-citationMcCulloch, G. (1987) · Philosophical Books · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0149.1987.tb01999.x · Cited by 387
Electrophysiological and Haemodynamic Correlates of Face Perception, Recognition and Priming
Henson, R. N. (2003) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/13.7.793 · Cited by 387
The Anterior Frontomedian Cortex and Evaluative Judgment: An fMRI Study
Zysset, S., Huber, O., Ferstl, E., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.1008 · Cited by 386
The Biological Basis of Social Interaction
Frith, U., & Frith, C. (2001) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00137 · Cited by 376
Other minds: how humans bridge the divide between self and others
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-3084 · Cited by 363
Stereotypes And Stereotyping: A Moral Analysis
Blum, L. A. (2004) · Philosophical Papers · doi:10.1080/05568640409485143 · Cited by 348
Sawamura, H., Orban, G. A., & Vogels, R. (2006) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2005.11.028 · Cited by 338
Apperly, I. A., Samson, D., Chiavarino, C., & Humphreys, G. W. (2004) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/0898929042947928 · Cited by 321
Highly religious participants recruit areas of social cognition in personal prayer
Schjoedt, U., Stødkilde-Jørgensen, H., Geertz, A. W., & Roepstorff, A. (2009) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsn050 · Cited by 305
Ames, D. R. (2004) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.573 · Cited by 294
The intentional network: How the brain reads varieties of intentions
Ciaramidaro, A., Adenzato, M., Enrici, I., Erk, S., Pia, L., Bara, B. G., & Walter, H. (2007) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.05.011 · Cited by 277
Scholz, J., Triantafyllou, C., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Brown, E. N., & Saxe, R. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004869 · Cited by 256
Thinking of mental and other representations: The roles of left and right temporo-parietal junction.
Perner, J., Aichhorn, M., Kronbichler, M., Staffen, W., & Ladurner, G. (2006) · Social Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/17470910600989896 · Cited by 245
Intuitions about consciousness: experimental studies
Knobe, J., & Prinz, J. (2008) · Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11097-007-9066-y · Cited by 227
Social cognitive neuroscience: where are we heading?
Blakemore, S.-J., Winston, J., & Frith, U. (2004) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.03.012 · Cited by 224
Mitchell, J. P., Neil Macrae, C., & Banaji, M. R. (2005) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.031 · Cited by 222
Self-citationAn fMRI Investigation of Spontaneous Mental State Inference for Moral Judgment
Young, L., & Saxe, R. (2009) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21137 · Cited by 208
Is Belief Reasoning Automatic?
Apperly, I. A., Riggs, K. J., Simpson, A., Chiavarino, C., & Samson, D. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01791.x · Cited by 207
Mental simulation: evaluations and applications
Freeman, N. (1995) · Blackwell eBooks · Cited by 202
Temporo-parietal junction activity in theory-of-mind tasks: falseness, beliefs, or attention
Aichhorn, M., Perner, J., Weiss, B., Kronbichler, M., Staffen, W., & Ladurner, G. (2009) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21082 · Cited by 190
Organizations as True Believers
Tollefsen, D. P. (2002) · Journal of Social Philosophy · doi:10.1111/0047-2786.00149 · Cited by 185
Jenkins, A. C., & Mitchell, J. P. (2010) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp109 · Cited by 183
Self-citationComplementary Neural Mechanisms for Tracking Items in Human Working Memory
Jiang, Y., Haxby, J. V., Martin, A. D., Ungerleider, L. G., & Parasuraman, R. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5453.643 · Cited by 174
Mental simulation : evaluations and applications
Davies, M., & Stone, T. (1995) · Cited by 172
Perceptions of the Collective Other
Abelson, R. P., Dasgupta, N., Park, J., & Banaji, M. R. (1998) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_2 · Cited by 170
Syntactic cues in the acquisition of collective nouns
Bloom, P., & Kelemen, D. A. (1995) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00648-5 · Cited by 135
Kashima, Y., Kashima, E. S., Chiu, C., Farsides, T., Gelfand, M. J., Hong, Y., Kim, U., Strack, F., Werth, L., Yuki, M., et al. (2004) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.237 · Cited by 125
Mentalizing and Marr: An information processing approach to the study of social cognition
Mitchell, J. P. (2006) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.113 · Cited by 122
Self-citationThe perceived intentionality of groups
Bloom, P., & Veres, C. (1999) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00014-1 · Cited by 119
George, A., & Butterfield, J. (1988) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2220274 · Cited by 110
Intuitions about Penalties and Compensation in the Context of Tort Law
Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (1993) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-2192-7_2 · Cited by 106
What Does the Nation of China Think About Phenomenal States?
Huebner, B., Bruno, M. G., & Sarkissian, H. (2009) · Review of Philosophy and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s13164-009-0009-0 · Cited by 80
Sobótka, S., & Ringo, J. L. (1996) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.16-13-04222.1996 · Cited by 60
Private Langauge, Public Laws: The Central Role of Legislative Intent in Statutory Interpretation
Solan, L. M. (2005) · The Georgetown law journal · Cited by 10
Xiong (1999) · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0193(1999)8:2/3
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
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
