CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 584Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments

Open access
Young, Liane, Camprodon, Joan Albert, Hauser, Marc, Pascual-Leone, Alvaro, Saxe, Rebecca·2010·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0914826107PMC PMC2872442
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When we judge an action as morally right or wrong, we rely on our capacity to infer the actor's mental states (e.g., beliefs, intentions). Here, we test the hypothesis that the right temporoparietal junction (RTPJ), an area involved in mental state reasoning, is necessary for making moral judgments. In two experiments, we used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to disrupt neural activity in the RTPJ transiently before moral judgment (experiment 1, offline stimulation) and during moral judgment (experiment 2, online stimulation). In both experiments, TMS to the RTPJ led participants to rely less on the actor's mental states. A particularly striking effect occurred for attempted harms (e.g., actors who intended but failed to do harm): Relative to TMS to a control site, TMS to the RTPJ caused participants to judge attempted harms as less morally forbidden and more morally permissible. Thus, interfering with activity in the RTPJ disrupts the capacity to use mental states in moral judgment, especially in the case of attempted harms.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Transient disruption of the right temporoparietal junction (RTPJ) with TMS reduced the influence of an actor’s beliefs on moral judgments, especially causing attempted harms to be judged as more permissible. The authors interpret this as evidence that normal RTPJ activity is causally involved in belief attribution for moral judgment.

Key findings

  • In experiment 1, offline TMS to RTPJ reduced belief-based moral judgments relative to control TMS: belief × TMS site interaction, F(1,7) = 7.4, P = 0.03, partial η² = 0.51.
  • In experiment 2, online TMS to RTPJ showed a trend toward the same effect: belief × TMS site interaction, F(1,11) = 4.6, P = 0.056, partial η² = 0.50.
  • Across both experiments, TMS to RTPJ specifically affected judgments of attempted harms, making them more permissible: experiment 1 item analysis t(59) = 2.28, P = 0.03; experiment 2 t(81) = 2.11, P = 0.038; combined t(87) = 3.6, P = 0.001.
  • TMS to RTPJ reduced participants’ use of beliefs by ≈15% but did not eliminate belief use; control TMS judgments did not differ from no-TMS judgments, and TMS site did not affect reaction times or judgment variability.

Methods

  • Two TMS experiments used an fMRI functional localizer to identify each participant’s RTPJ, then compared TMS to RTPJ versus a control right parietal site during a moral judgment task.
  • Experiment 1 used offline 1 Hz TMS for 25 min in 8 right-handed subjects (aged 18–30, five women); experiment 2 used online 10 Hz TMS for 500 ms time-locked to the moral judgment question in 12 different subjects (aged 18–30, seven women).
  • Moral scenarios varied belief (neutral vs. negative) and outcome (neutral vs. negative); participants rated moral permissibility from 1 (forbidden) to 7 (permissible). Analyses used repeated-measures ANOVA and item analyses.

Limitations

  • The paper states that TMS reduced but did not eliminate the role of beliefs, and that TMS effects may spread to connected regions, so results cannot distinguish whether RTPJ alone or RTPJ plus connected regions are necessary.
  • The paper notes an unpredicted asymmetry: effects were more pronounced for attempted harms than accidental harms, but the belief × outcome × TMS interaction was not significant, so this interpretation “must be taken lightly.”
  • The paper acknowledges an alternative hypothesis that TMS disrupted other cognitive functions such as attention, though it argues against this based on anatomical separation and lack of reaction-time or variability effects; evident from the text, sample sizes were small (experiment 1 n = 8; experiment 2 n = 12).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0914826107

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

0 of 57 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Results

    In experiment 1, there was no effect of TMS site on the variability of participants' judgments.

    “There was also no effect of TMS site on the variability of participants’ judgments, as measured by the SD of judgments within a condition across participants [e.g., belief by TMS site interaction: F(1,7) = 0.1, P = 0.8].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Discussion

    There was no significant difference between the effects of TMS on attempted harms and accidental harms (no interaction of belief by outcome by TMS) in any analysis.

    “Notably, however, there was no significant difference between the effects of TMS on attempted harms and accidental harms (no interaction of belief by outcome by TMS) in any analysis”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Moral judgments in the control TMS condition did not differ from moral judgments made in the absence of TMS.

    “Also, there were no differences between judgments obtained in the control TMS condition and judgments obtained from a different group of participants with no TMS [e.g., belief by TMS (control TMS vs. no TMS) interaction: F(1,28) = 0.06, P = 0.2; pilot study described in Materials and Methods].”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “Also, judgments obtained in the control TMS condition did not differ from judgments obtained without TMS [n = 10; belief by TMS interaction: F(1,20) = 0.02, P = 0.9].”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “Moral judgments in the control TMS condition were no different from moral judgments made in the absence of TMS.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Discussion

    In the current scenarios, the agents' beliefs dominated participants' moral judgments in the absence of TMS.

    “In the current scenarios, however, the agents’ beliefs dominated participants’ moral judgments in the absence of TMS.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    In experiment 2, there were no other main effects or interactions involving TMS site or order of stimulation site.

    “There were no other main effects or interactions involving TMS site or order of stimulation site.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 21
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 29
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Moral judgments of intentional harms and nonharms were unaffected by TMS to either the RTPJ or the control site.

    “On the contrary, moral judgments of intentional harms and nonharms were unaffected by TMS to either the RTPJ or the control site”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    In experiment 1, the only significant effect on reaction times was a belief by outcome interaction, reflecting shorter reaction times for intentional harms than for the other conditions.

    “The only significant effect on reaction times was a belief by outcome interaction [F(1,7) = 9.6, P = 0.02, partial h2 = 0.56], which reflected the shorter reaction times for intentional harms than for the other conditions (intentional harm, 1.2 s; attempted harm, 1.6 s; accidental harm, 1.8 s; nonharm, 1.6 s).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data
    § Results

    In experiment 2, overall, negative beliefs elicited shorter reaction times than neutral beliefs.

    “although, overall, negative beliefs elicited shorter reaction times than neutral beliefs [neutral beliefs: 0.70 s; negative beliefs: 0.64 s, F(1,10) = 21.2, P = 0.001, partial h2 = 0.68].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    In the combined analysis of both experiments, the only significant effects were main effects of belief, outcome, a belief by outcome interaction, and a TMS site by belief interaction.

    “The only significant effects in this combined analysis were main effects of belief [F(1,12) = 90.5, P < 0.001, partial h2 = 0.88], outcome [F(1,12) = 110.9, P < 0.001, partial h2 = 0.90], a belief by outcome interaction [F(1,12) = 5.6, P = 0.035, partial h2 = 0.32], and, critically, the same TMS site by belief interaction found in both experiments 1 and 2 [F(1,12) = 7.6, P = 0.017, partial h2 = 0.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract

    TMS to the RTPJ reduces the influence of beliefs on moral judgments in both experiments.

    “In both experiments, TMS to the RTPJ led participants to rely less on the actor's mental states.”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “Following TMS to the RTPJ, moral judgments were less influenced by the actor's beliefs than following TMS to the control site [interaction between belief and TMS site: F(1,7) = 7.4, P = 0.03, partial h2 = 0.51; Fig. 3, Upper].”
    • Also stated in: § Results · hedged
      “Disrupting activity in the RTPJ during the task showed a trend toward moral judgments that were less belief-based than judgments made in the TMS control condition [interaction between belief and TMS site: F(1,11) = 4.6, P = 0.056, partial h2 = 0.50; Fig. 3, Lower].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data
    § Results

    In experiment 1, there were no other main effects or interactions involving TMS site or order of stimulation site.

    “There were no other main effects or interactions involving TMS site or order of stimulation site, that is, whether the RTPJ or the control site was stimulated first.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingnone given
    § Discussion

    The hint of asymmetry between attempted and accidental harms appeared to be more pronounced in experiment 1 than in experiment 2.

    “Also of interest is that the hint of asymmetry between attempted and accidental harms appeared to be more pronounced in experiment 1 than in experiment 2”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    One unpredicted aspect of the current results was the more pronounced effect of TMS on judgments of attempted harms than on judgments of accidental harms.

    “One unpredicted aspect of the current results was the more pronounced effect of TMS on judgments of attempted harms (negative belief, neutral outcome) than on judgments of accidental harms (neutral belief, negative outcome).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Statistical analyses across both experiments did not reveal any effect of experiment; there was no significant difference between the pattern of results for experiments 1 and 2.

    “although statistical analyses across both experiments did not reveal any effect of experiment; that is, there was no significant difference between the pattern of results for experiments 1 and 2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data
    § Results

    In experiment 2, TMS did not affect the variability of participants' judgments.

    “TMS also did not affect the variability of participants’ judgments [e.g., belief by TMS site interaction: F(1,7) = 0.1, P = 0.8].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    TMS to the RTPJ significantly reduced but did not eliminate the role of beliefs in moral judgment.

    “TMS to the RTPJ significantly reduced but did not eliminate the role of beliefs in moral judgment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data
    § Results

    In experiment 2, no effects or interactions involving TMS site were found for reaction time.

    “No effects or interactions involving TMS site were found for reaction time [e.g., belief by TMS site interaction: F(1,10) = 0.9, P = 0.4]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    TMS to the RTPJ reduced participants' use of beliefs by approximately 15% but did not block the use of beliefs completely.

    “Consistent with prior estimates, we found that TMS to the RTPJ reduced participants’ use of beliefs (by ≈15%) but did not block the use of beliefs completely.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data
    § Results

    In the combined analysis, the experiments did not interact with any variable.

    “The experiments did not interact with any variable in this analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Participants continued to judge accidental harms (neutral belief, negative outcome) as more permissible than intentional harms (negative belief, negative outcome) and attempted harms (negative belief, neutral outcome) as more forbidden than nonharms (neutral belief, neutral outcome) and even accidental harms.

    “Participants continued to judge accidental harms (neutral belief, negative outcome) as more permissible than intentional harms (negative belief, negative outcome) and attempted harms (negative belief, neutral outcome) as more forbidden than nonharms (neutral belief, neutral outcome) and even accidental harms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data
    § Materials and Methods

    The peak voxel coordinates in the whole-brain random effects group analysis after normalization onto the Montreal Neurological Institute template were [60, −54, 34]; the average size was 509 mm3.

    “The peak voxel coordinates in the whole-brain random effects group analysis after normalization onto the Montreal Neurological Institute template were [60, −54, 34]; the average size was 509 mm3.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data
    § Materials and Methods

    The peak voxel coordinates in experiment 2 were [52, −52, 28]; the average size was 151 mm3.

    “The peak voxel coordinates in the whole-brain random effects group analysis after normalization onto the Montreal Neurological Institute template were [52, −52, 28]; the average size was 151 mm3.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    TMS to the RTPJ (or the control site) did not render participants more conflicted (slower moral judgments) or less reliable (more variable judgments) on any condition.

    “TMS to the RTPJ (or the control site) did not render participants more conflicted (i.e., slower moral judgments) or less reliable (i.e., more variable judgments) on any condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    In experiment 2, the authors modified the stimuli to remove these concerns and replicated the results of experiment 1.

    “In experiment 2, we modified the stimuli to remove these concerns and replicated the results of experiment 1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Young children's failure to reason fully and flexibly about mental states, and in particular to integrate mental state information for moral judgment, leads them to focus instead on the action's consequences.

    “By contrast, young children's failure to reason fully and flexibly about mental states and, in particular, to integrate mental state information for moral judgment leads them to focus instead on the action's consequences (1–3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [1] Baird JA, Astington JW. The role of mental state understanding in the development of moral cognition and moral action. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2004;103:37–49. doi: 10.1002/cd.96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] Karniol R. Children's use of intention cues in evaluating behavior. Psychol Bull. 1978;85:76–85. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] Piaget J. The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: Free Press; 1932. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The overall pattern of the current results is consistent with the hypothesis that TMS disrupted function in the RTPJ and that the behavioral consequences of this disruption were proportional to the amount of activity previously observed in the RTPJ for each condition and time period.

    “The overall pattern of the current results is thus consistent with the hypothesis that TMS disrupted function in the RTPJ and that the behavioral consequences of this disruption were proportional to the amount of activity previously observed in the RTPJ for each condition and time period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Activity in the RTPJ while participants make moral judgments about attempted and accidental harms shows the same asymmetry: greater activity for attempted than accidental harms.

    “Activity in the RTPJ while participants make moral judgments about attempted and accidental harms shows the same asymmetry: greater activity for attempted than accidental harms (9, 10, 24, 25).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [9] Young L, Cushman F, Hauser M, Saxe R. The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:8235–8240. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701408104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] Young L, Saxe R. The neural basis of belief encoding and integration in moral judgment. NeuroImage. 2008;40:1912–1920. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [24] Young L, Saxe R. Innocent intentions: A correlation between forgiveness for accidental harm and neural activity. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47:2065–2072. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.03.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] Young L, Saxe R. An FMRI investigation of spontaneous mental state inference for moral judgment. J Cognit Neurosci. 2009;21:1396–1405. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results

    The full pattern of results of experiment 2 provides an overall replication of experiment 1 in different participants, using a temporally specific TMS protocol targeting the specific time of moral judgment.

    “The full pattern of results of experiment 2 provides an overall replication of experiment 1 in different participants, using a temporally specific TMS protocol targeting the specific time of moral judgment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results

    The selective bias in moral judgments induced by TMS to the RTPJ cannot be explained by differences in difficulty between conditions or by the effects of TMS on attention or task performance more generally.

    “We therefore conclude that the selective bias in moral judgments induced by TMS to the RTPJ cannot be explained by differences in difficulty between conditions or by the effects of TMS on attention or task performance more generally.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    When participants perform the current task in the scanner, the RTPJ shows two distinct phases of response: a high response to both attempted and accidental harms while participants are first reading the scenarios, and an enhanced response to attempted harms while participants are making moral judgments.

    “When participants perform the current task in the scanner (i.e., read moral scenarios and then make moral judgments), the RTPJ shows two distinct phases of response: (i) a high response to both attempted and accidental harms while participants are first reading the scenarios and (ii) as described above, an enhanced response to attempted harms while participants are making moral judgments (10).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] Young L, Saxe R. The neural basis of belief encoding and integration in moral judgment. NeuroImage. 2008;40:1912–1920. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationcitation
    § Discussion

    The enhanced RTPJ response for attempted harms at the time of judgment appears to reflect enhanced mental state processing for negative moral judgments that rely exclusively on mental state information.

    “The enhanced RTPJ response for attempted harms at the time of judgment appears to reflect enhanced mental state processing for negative moral judgments that rely exclusively on mental state information (9, 10)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [9] Young L, Cushman F, Hauser M, Saxe R. The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:8235–8240. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701408104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] Young L, Saxe R. The neural basis of belief encoding and integration in moral judgment. NeuroImage. 2008;40:1912–1920. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Recent research suggests that the RTPJ is late maturing.

    “Consistent with this idea, recent research suggests that the RTPJ is late maturing (44).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44] Saxe RR, Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Scholz J, Pelphrey KA. Brain regions for perceiving and reasoning about other people in school-aged children. Child Dev. 2009;80:1197–1209. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01325.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Materials and Methods

    Analyses were performed to determine whether the effects wore off during the session; no within-session effects were found.

    “Analyses were performed to determine whether the effects wore off during the session; no within-session effects were found.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Materials and Methods

    The behavioral impact of TMS is broadly defined as ranging between 50% and 200% of the time of stimulation.

    “However, the behavioral impact is broadly defined as ranging between 50% and 200% of the time of stimulation (14)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Walsh V, Cowey A. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and cognitive neuro-science. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2000;1:73–79. doi: 10.1038/35036239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data
    § Materials and Methods

    Word count and average reading time were matched across conditions.

    “word count and average reading time were matched across conditions (Fig. 1 and SI Text).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Materials and Methods

    Individual brain images were used to plan, guide, and monitor the stimulation in real time using a stereotaxic infrared system, ensuring that every TMS pulse was delivered to the predetermined cortical location.

    “These individual brain images were used to plan, guide, and monitor the stimulation in real time using a stereotaxic infrared system, ensuring that every TMS pulse was delivered to the predetermined cortical location (53).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [53] Gugino LD, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation coregistered with MRI: A comparison of a guided versus blind stimulation technique and its effect on evoked compound muscle action potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2001;112:1781–1792. doi: 10.1016/s1388-2457(01)00633-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Materials and Methods

    Stories were presented in a pseudorandom order; the order of conditions was counterbalanced across runs and across subjects.

    “Stories were presented in a pseudorandom order; the order of conditions was counterbalanced across runs and across subjects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    A pattern commonly observed in moral development is that children up to the age of 6 years rely primarily on the observable outcomes of an action when making moral judgments of the action.

    “These results may relate to a pattern commonly observed in moral development in which children up to the age of 6 years rely primarily on the observable outcomes of an action when making moral judgments of the action (3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Piaget J. The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: Free Press; 1932. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Abstract

    To locate the RTPJ in each participant, the study first carried out an fMRI scan using a functional localizer for brain regions implicated in mental state attribution.

    “To locate the RTPJ in each participant, we first carried out an fMRI scan, using a functional localizer for brain regions implicated in mental state attribution (7).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] Saxe R, Kanwisher N. People thinking about thinking people. The role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind.”. NeuroImage. 2003;19:1835–1842. doi: 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00230-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisenone given
    § Materials and Methods

    Offline TMS has the advantage that any general effects of stimulation would not be concurrent with the behavioral experiment.

    “Offline TMS has the advantage that any general effects of stimulation would not be concurrent with the behavioral experiment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Abstract

    Experiment 2 provided a replication and extension of experiment 1 in a different group of participants.

    “Experiment 2 provided a replication and extension of experiment 1 in a different group of participants.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Materials and Methods

    TMS was applied to the fMRI-defined subject-specific RTPJ in one session and to a control region 5 cm posterior to the RTPJ on the axial plane in the other session, counterbalancing for order of stimulation site, to control for any nonspecific secondary effects of rTMS.

    “TMS was applied to the fMRI-defined subject-specific RTPJ in one session and to a control region 5 cm posterior to the RTPJ on the axial plane in the other session, counterbalancing for order of stimulation site (Fig. S2), to control for any nonspecific secondary effects of rTMS.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Materials and Methods

    TMS was applied to the fMRI-defined subject-specific RTPJ in three runs and to a control region in the other three runs, which were interleaved during the session, counterbalancing for order of stimulation site.

    “TMS was applied to the fMRI-defined subject-specific RTPJ in three runs and to a control region in the other three runs, which were interleaved during the session, counterbalancing for order of stimulation site.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Materials and Methods

    The RTPJ was defined for each subject individually based on a whole-brain analysis of the localizer contrast and as contiguous voxels that were significantly more active (P < 0.001, uncorrected) for belief stories vs. physical stories.

    “The RTPJ was defined for each subject individually based on a whole-brain analysis of the localizer contrast and as contiguous voxels that were significantly more active (P < 0.001, uncorrected) for belief stories vs. physical stories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Discussion

    Experiment 1 participants saw outcome information immediately before making their moral judgments.

    “participants saw outcome information immediately before making their moral judgments”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Results

    Experiment 2 modified the stimuli to remove the repetition of the outcome information.

    “Experiment 2 directly addressed these concerns by (i) modifying the stimuli to remove the repetition of the outcome information”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Results

    The stimuli were modified so that outcome and belief information was matched for frequency and recency.

    “In addition, the stimuli were modified so that outcome and belief information was matched for frequency and recency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that either the RTPJ is specifically necessary for belief attribution or the RTPJ and regions to which it is connected are jointly necessary.

    “Our results are thus consistent with the hypothesis that either the (i) RTPJ is specifically necessary for belief attribution or (ii) the RTPJ and regions to which it is connected are jointly necessary.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Near the right TPJ is a lateral inferior parietal region involved in attentional shifting, one component of the ventral attention network.

    “Near the right TPJ is a lateral inferior parietal region involved in attentional shifting, one component of the “ventral attention network” (37–39).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [37] Corbetta M, Kincade JM, Ollinger JM, McAvoy MP, Shulman GL. Voluntary orienting is dissociated from target detection in human posterior parietal cortex. Nat Neurosci. 2000;3:292–297. doi: 10.1038/73009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [38] Mitchell JP. Activity in right temporo-parietal junction is not selective for theory-of-mind. Cereb Cortex. 2007;18:262–271. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhm051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [39] Scholz J, Triantafyllou C, Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Brown EN, Saxe R. Distinct regions of right temporo-parietal junction are selective for theory of mind and exogenous attention. PLoS One. 2009;4:1–7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Discussion

    Experiment 1 stimuli presented outcome information twice and belief information once.

    “participants were presented with outcome information twice and belief information once”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
45 of 45

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The functional selectivity of the RTPJ for beliefs increases in children from 6 to 11 years old.

    “In addition, the functional selectivity of the RTPJ for beliefs increases in children from 6 to 11 years old.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Both folk moral judgments and legal decisions depend on our ability to look beyond the consequences of an individual's actions to the beliefs and intentions that underlie those actions.

    “In sum, both folk moral judgments and legal decisions depend on our ability to look beyond the consequences of an individual's actions to the beliefs and intentions that underlie those actions.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The ability to focus on intentions is potentially contingent on activation in the Right Temporo-Parietal Junction (RTPJ).

    “As Saxe and her colleagues have demonstrated, in the neuroscience area, the ability to focus on intentions is potentially contingent on activation in the Right Temporo-Parietal Junction (RTPJ) (L. Young, Camprodon, Hauser, Pascual-Leone, & Saxe, 2010; L. Young, et al., 2007).”

    From The accidental transgressor: Morally-relevant theory of mind (2011) · cites this paper as L. Young, et al., 2010

Statistics that don’t add up

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

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1,28) = 0.06, p = .2

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .2 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .808. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .2 · recomputed p = .808

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

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

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 28) = 0.06reported p = .2 · recomputed p = .808

    “F(1,28) = 0.06, p = .2”

  • ConsistentF(1, 7) = 7.4reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .030

    “F(1,7) = 7.4, p = .03”

  • Consistentt(59) = 2.28reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .026

    “t(59) = 2.28, p = .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 7) = 0.3reported p = .6 · recomputed p = .601

    “F(1,7) = 0.3, p = .6”

  • ConsistentF(1, 7) = 9.6reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .017

    “F(1,7) = 9.6, p = .02”

  • ConsistentF(1, 7) = 0.1reported p = .8 · recomputed p = .761

    “F(1,7) = 0.1, p = .8”

  • ConsistentF(1, 11) = 4.6reported p = .056 · recomputed p = .055

    “F(1,11) = 4.6, p = .056”

  • ConsistentF(1, 20) = 0.02reported p = .9 · recomputed p = .889

    “F(1,20) = 0.02, p = .9”

  • Consistentt(81) = 2.11reported p = .038 · recomputed p = .038

    “t(81) = 2.11, p = .038”

  • ConsistentF(1, 10) = 0.9reported p = .4 · recomputed p = .365

    “F(1,10) = 0.9, p = .4”

  • ConsistentF(1, 10) = 21.2reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,10) = 21.2, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 12) = 90.5reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,12) = 90.5, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 12) = 110.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,12) = 110.9, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 12) = 5.6reported p = .035 · recomputed p = .036

    “F(1,12) = 5.6, p = .035”

  • ConsistentF(1, 12) = 7.6reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .017

    “F(1,12) = 7.6, p = .017”

  • Consistentt(87) = 3.6reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(87) = 3.6, p = .001”

16 of 16

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Opposite descriptions of which experiment showed greater asymmetry

    Minor

    The discussion first says the asymmetry between attempted and accidental harms was more pronounced in experiment 1, then describes experiment 1 as more symmetrical than experiment 2.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Young, L., Camprodon, J. A., Hauser, M., Pascual-Leone, A., & Saxe, R.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Berenson–Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215; and
Corresponding author
Young, Liane
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2010-03-29
Volume
107
Issue
15
Pages
6753-6758
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0914826107
PMC
PMC2872442
OpenAlex
W2150331592
Semantic Scholar
5c7988e0885f22d208ed4cd056bc1994e6f43b6c
Cited by
584
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 28
FWCI
19.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (UL1 RR025758)
  • David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  • Simons Foundation
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Harvard Catalyst (UL1-RR025758, RR025758)
  • Centre d'Imagerie BioMédicale
  • Fundación Rafael del Pino
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R25MH094612)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P41-RR-14075, K24RR018875, UL1RR025758, P41RR014075)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
right temporoparietal junction, moral judgment, mental state reasoning, theory of mind, transcranial magnetic stimulation, moral beliefs
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cognition, Culture, Female, Humans, Judgment, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Morals, Neurons, Parietal Lobe, Temporal Lobe, Time Factors, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

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

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

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