Cited by 950Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentAction Observation and SynchronizationNarrative Theory and Analysis

The Neural Bases of Social Cognition and Story Comprehension

Mar, Raymond A.·2011·Annual Review of Psychology

Abstract

A great deal of research exists on the neural basis of theory-of-mind (ToM) or mentalizing. Qualitative reviews on this topic have identified a mentalizing network composed of the medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate/precuneus, and bilateral temporal parietal junction. These conclusions, however, are not based on a quantitative and systematic approach. The current review presents a quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies pertaining to ToM, using the activation-likelihood estimation (ALE) approach. Separate ALE meta-analyses are presented for story-based and nonstory-based studies of ToM. The conjunction of these two meta-analyses reveals a core mentalizing network that includes areas not typically noted by previous reviews. A third ALE meta-analysis was conducted with respect to story comprehension in order to examine the relation between ToM and stories. Story processing overlapped with many regions of the core mentalizing network, and these shared regions bear some resemblance to a network implicated by a number of other processes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145406

Cites

248 of 248 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Stories are particularly helpful in learning how to navigate the social world.

    “Stories are particularly helpful in learning how to navigate the social world (Dodell-Feder & Tamir, 2018; Mar, 2011; Mar & Oatley, 2008; Mar et al., 2006, 2009; Oatley, 1999; Tamir et al., 2015).”

    From Stories in Action. (2022) · cites this paper as Mar, 2011

  • The results of the meta-analysis of ToM were consistent with earlier quantitative analyses of neuroimaging studies.

    “The results of the meta-analysis of ToM were consistent with earlier quantitative analyses”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mar, R. A.
Affiliations
York University (CA)
Corresponding author
Mar, Raymond A.
Venue
Annual Review of Psychology
Published
2011-01-10
Volume
62
Issue
1
Pages
103-134
ISSN
  • 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2085
OpenAlex
W2126395049
Cited by
950
References
248
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 68 · 2015: 84 · 2014: 77 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 41
FWCI
6.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
Keywords
theory of mind, mentalization, social cognition, narrative comprehension, narrative processing, mentalizing network, medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, precuneus, temporoparietal junction, neural basis of social cognition
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Reading, Social Perception, Comprehension, Theory of Mind

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review