The DOI matches its Crossref record; 99 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 16 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A Meta-analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self- and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex
Open accessAbstract
The distinction between processes used to perceive and understand the self and others has received considerable attention in psychology and neuroscience. Brain findings highlight a role for various regions, in particular the medial PFC (mPFC), in supporting judgments about both the self and others. We performed a meta-analysis of 107 neuroimaging studies of self- and other-related judgments using multilevel kernel density analysis [Kober, H., & Wager, T. D. Meta-analyses of neuroimaging data. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews, 1, 293–300, 2010]. We sought to determine what brain regions are reliably involved in each judgment type and, in particular, what the spatial and functional organization of mPFC is with respect to them. Relative to nonmentalizing judgments, both self- and other judgments were associated with activity in mPFC, ranging from ventral to dorsal extents, as well as common activation of the left TPJ and posterior cingulate. A direct comparison between self- and other judgments revealed that ventral mPFC as well as left ventrolateral PFC and left insula were more frequently activated by self-related judgments, whereas dorsal mPFC, in addition to bilateral TPJ and cuneus, was more frequently activated by other-related judgments. Logistic regression analyses revealed that ventral and dorsal mPFC lay at opposite ends of a functional gradient: The z coordinates reported in individual studies predicted whether the study involved self- or other-related judgments, which were associated with increasingly ventral or dorsal portions of mPFC, respectively. These results argue for a distributed rather than localizationist account of mPFC organization and support an emerging view on the functional heterogeneity of mPFC.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This meta-analysis of 107 functional neuroimaging studies found that self- and other-related judgments share medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), left temporoparietal junction, and posterior cingulate activity, but differ in mPFC subregions. A logistic regression showed a dorsal–ventral spatial gradient in mPFC, with increasingly ventral activation associated with self judgments and increasingly dorsal activation associated with other judgments.
Key findings
- Across 107 published reports and 307 contrasts, both Self>Baseline and Other>Baseline involved broad mPFC activation from ventral to dorsal extents, plus common activation in left temporoparietal junction, posterior cingulate, and left middle temporal gyrus/superior temporal sulcus.
- Direct Self>Other comparisons activated vmPFC, including left rostral BA 10, anterior paracingulate cortex (BA 32), left ventrolateral PFC, left anterior and mid-insula, left dorsal caudate, thalamus, and left temporal pole; Other>Self activated bilateral dmPFC, bilateral TPJ, and cuneus.
- Logistic regression within mPFC used 47 Self contrasts and 43 Other contrasts from 33 and 34 studies, respectively; z coordinate significantly predicted Self vs. Other contrast status, while x and y coordinates did not. The scatterplot relating estimated self proportions to z coordinate showed r = −0.71, p < 0.01.
- The authors interpret the results as supporting a distributed gradient rather than discrete, localizationist modules for self- and other-related processing in mPFC.
Methods
- Literature search covered January 1995–February 2008 and included healthy, unmedicated adults, PET or fMRI, image subtraction, and Talairach/MNI coordinates; this yielded 107 reports and 307 contrasts, with 74 Self, 76 Other, and 24 Baseline contrasts drawn from 48, 48, and 19 studies, respectively.
- Multilevel Kernel Density Analysis (MKDA) registered peaks to MNI space, convolved them with a 10-mm spherical kernel, created Comparison Indicator Maps, weighted by square root of sample size, and thresholded with 5,000 Monte Carlo iterations at p < .05 FWE-corrected.
- A binary logistic regression predicted self vs. other activation status from MNI x, y, and z coordinates within an independently defined mPFC boundary (|x| < 25, y > 15, z > −5).
Limitations
- Stated: the relatively small number of studies within each Self/Other × judgment-type condition meant that differences between types of mental state judgments were not the focus; future work may test whether the gradient is specific to certain judgment types.
- Stated: 29 studies were coded but did not contribute contrasts because of the conservative coding algorithm, and contrasts reflecting both Self and Other judgments were excluded.
- Evident: as a coordinate-based meta-analysis, it relies on reported significant activation foci and cannot directly assess individual-study effect sizes, within-study variability, or the full range of mentalizing task designs.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 16 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
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
“Further, to illustrate the logistic regression result for the z coordinates in particular, a scatterplot showing estimated self proportions as a function of z coordinate within the mPFC boundary is shown in Figure 5 (r=−0.71, p<0.01).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Results > Logistic Regression: Discerning the Spatial/Functional Organization of mPFC
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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 prior work (Gilbert et al., 2006; Mitchell, Banaji, & Macrae, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2006; Northoff et al., 2006; Qin & Northoff, 2011; van der Meer et al., 2010), we found that self-related judgments were associated with relatively ventral mPFC (BA 10) and anterior paracingulate cortex (BA 32) whereas other-related judgments were associated with relatively dorsal mPFC (BA 8 & 9).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Whole-Brain Comparisons of Self and Other-Related Judgments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
“While the overlap in mPFC was the most striking and extensive, there was substantial functional overlap in other areas of the brain as well, including left temporoparietal junction (TPJ), posterior cingulate, and left middle temporal gyrus and superior temporal sulcus, all of which have been previously associated with mentalizing about the beliefs, desires, perceptions, or emotions of oneself and”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Whole-Brain Comparisons of Self and Other-Related Judgments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
“whereas dorsal mPFC (dmPFC), in addition to bilateral TPJ and cuneus, were more frequently activated by other-related judgments.”
- Also stated in: § MKDA Analyses: Regions involved in Processing Self, Other, or Both · boosted
“For the Other condition relative to the Self condition, robust bilateral dmPFC activity was observed, in addition to bilateral TPJ and cuneus activity (Supplementary Figure 2 and Supplementary Table 4).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- The authors state this as an assumption: The null hypothesis for the Monte Carlo simulation was a uniform random distribution of peaks within each comparison in gray matter in the standard brain.
- Also stated in: § MKDA Analyses: Regions involved in Processing Self, Other, or Both · boosted
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
“Within mPFC, logistic regression analyses showed a significant effect of z coordinate predicting Self vs. Other contrast status, while x and y coordinates were not significantly predictive (Table 1).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Results > Logistic Regression: Discerning the Spatial/Functional Organization of mPFC
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
“Broad overlap was observed in both ventral and dorsal mPFC, which is consistent with prior work indicating that mPFC is involved in attending to one’s own or another’s mental state (Gilbert et al., 2006; Legrand & Ruby, 2009; Ochsner et al., 2005; Ochsner et al., 2004; Van Overwalle, 2011; Van Overwalle & Baetens, 2009).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Whole-Brain Comparisons of Self and Other-Related Judgments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
“Within mPFC, logistic regression analyses showed a significant effect of z coordinate predicting Self vs. Other contrast status, while x and y coordinates were not significantly predictive (Table 1).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Results > Logistic Regression: Discerning the Spatial/Functional Organization of mPFC
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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 prior work (Gilbert et al., 2006; Mitchell, Banaji, & Macrae, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2006; Northoff et al., 2006; Qin & Northoff, 2011; van der Meer et al., 2010), we found that self-related judgments were associated with relatively ventral mPFC (BA 10) and anterior paracingulate cortex (BA 32) whereas other-related judgments were associated with relatively dorsal mPFC (BA 8 & 9).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Whole-Brain Comparisons of Self and Other-Related Judgments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
“We performed a meta-analysis of 107 neuroimaging studies of self- and other-related judgments using Multilevel Kernel Density Analysis (MKDA; Kober & Wager, 2010).”
- Also stated in: § Identification of Studies · plain
“This process yielded 107 published reports, which involved 307 individual contrasts (summarized in Supplementary Tables 1 & 2).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Identification of Studies · plain
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
“Recall that this comparison showed apparently discrete and separate dorsal and ventral mPFC regions associated with other- and self-related judgments, respectively.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Discerning the Spatial and Functional Organization of mPFC
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Consistent with Gilbert and colleagues, we found that mentalizing (i.e. attention to mental state of either self or other) was associated with medial activation within mPFC, including BA 10.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Whole-Brain Comparisons of Self and Other-Related Judgments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesWhat 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 order to draw direct inferences about the spatial distribution of self vs. other representations that are unbiased by potential smoothing artifacts, we performed a binary logistic regression incorporating three continuous predictors (MNI-standardized x, y, and z coordinates for each point located within an independently-defined mPFC boundary) and one binary dependent variable (activation point”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Methods > Data analysis overview
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
“As such, these results confirm the idea that this suite of regions is essential for making judgments about mental states – regardless of whose states they are.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Whole-Brain Comparisons of Self and Other-Related Judgments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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
“Indeed, none of the prior meta-analyses quantitatively assessed the nature of the spatial organization of self and other judgment processing in mPFC, and making inferences about this organization was a principal aim in the current study.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Introduction
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The notion that some apparent double dissociations may be more accurately conceptualized as gradients has been described in other domains in the physiology and neuroimaging literature (Fuster, 2003, 2006), including in an fMRI examination of the medial temporal lobe regarding response profiles to objects and scenes (Litman, Awipi, & Davachi, 2009).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Discerning the Spatial and Functional Organization of mPFC
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fuster, 2003, 2006
- Not checked yetcites Litman, Awipi, & Davachi, 2009
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
“The present results suggest that increasingly ventral activity is more strongly associated with self-related “default” functional activity, given that mPFC activity is also prominently observed during rest.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Relationship to Default Mode Hypothesis
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ventrolateral PFC, and in particular left vlPFC, has been associated with retrieval of information from semantic memory (Badre & Wagner, 2007; Thompson-Schill, Bedny, & Goldberg, 2005), and this represents a plausible functional explanation in this case, given task demands that required recalling personally-relevant information.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Whole-Brain Comparisons of Self and Other-Related Judgments
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Badre & Wagner, 2007 source
- Not checked yetcites Thompson-Schill, Bedny, & Goldberg, 2005
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA 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, we argue that these results support a distributed rather than a localizationist account (cf. Poldrack, 2008) of the neural mechanisms that support judgments about the self others.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The left anterior insula findings are consistent with the results of another recent self-other meta-analysis (Qin et al., 2011; Qin & Northoff, 2011) and are consistent with a role for interoception in self-related awareness that involves the anterior insula (Craig, 2009; Denny, Ochsner, Weber, & Wager, in prep.; Wager & Barrett, 2004).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Whole-Brain Comparisons of Self and Other-Related Judgments
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 20
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
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
“In addition, self-related judgments were associated with almost entirely left-lateralized activity, including left ventrolateral PFC (vlPFC), left anterior and mid-insula, and dorsal caudate.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Whole-Brain Comparisons of Self and Other-Related Judgments
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
“The resulting analysis was performed on 47 Self contrasts and 43 Other contrasts that reported activation points within this mPFC region. These contrasts were drawn from 33 studies for Self and 34 studies for Other.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Methods > Data analysis overview
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. 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
“Using a database of 107 published neuroimaging studies we reported evidence for self- and other-related judgments being (1) supported by both common and distinct groups of regions that include many implicated in mentalizing in prior work, and (2) associated with a spatial mentalizing gradient within mPFC, with increasingly ventral activation being increasingly associated with self-related judgment”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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 detailed in Supplementary Table 1, 29 studies were coded but did not contribute contrasts to the meta-analysis due to our conservative coding algorithm, described below.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Methods > Identification of Studies
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“Relative to non-mentalizing judgments, both self and other judgments were associated with activity in mPFC, ranging from ventral to dorsal extents, as well as common activation of the left temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and posterior cingulate.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The null hypothesis for the Monte Carlo simulation was a uniform random distribution of peaks within each comparison in gray matter in the standard brain.
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
“Across Self and Other judgment conditions the nature of the mental state judgment varied, although for each judgment a comparable number of contrasts were coded as being affectively-relevant (17 for Self, 19 for Other), relating to trait judgments (11 for Self, 14 for Other), and relating to a target’s intentions (9 for Self, 20 for Other). Contrasts coded as cognitive, such as theory-of-mind judg”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Methods > Study Coding
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. 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
“The total number of contrasts that pertained to each condition were as follows: 74 for Self, 76 for Other, and 24 for Baseline. These contrasts were drawn from 48 studies for Self, 48 studies for Other, and 19 studies for Baseline (Supplementary Tables 1 & 2).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Methods > Study Coding
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. 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
“A direct comparison between self and other judgments revealed that ventral mPFC (vmPFC), as well as left ventrolateral PFC and left insula, were more frequently activated by self-related judgments”
- Also stated in: § MKDA Analyses: Regions involved in Processing Self, Other, or Both · plain
“Figure 3 shows that the Self condition, relative to the Other condition, significantly activated vmPFC, including left rostral BA 10, anterior paracingulate cortex (BA 32), left ventrolateral PFC (vlPFC), left anterior and mid-insula, left dorsal caudate, thalamus, and left temporal pole.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The null hypothesis for the Monte Carlo simulation was a uniform random distribution of peaks within each comparison in gray matter in the standard brain.
- Also stated in: § MKDA Analyses: Regions involved in Processing Self, Other, or Both · plain
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
“Specifically, like Northoff and colleagues, we found evidence for self-related judgments being reliably associated with activation along the cortical midline, including mPFC, anterior cingulate, and posterior cingulate, particularly for the self vs. baseline comparison, though activation was not exclusive to the midline.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Whole-Brain Comparisons of Self and Other-Related Judgments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“Direct comparisons between judgments of self and others yielded a distributed set of regions that are relatively more active for self judgments, including vmPFC, left vlPFC, and left caudate, and another set of regions that are more active for other judgments, including dmPFC, bilateral TPJ and cuneus.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“While this particular discrepant result could stem from multiple causes, we included the results from this study in the present meta-analysis and found that while both ventral and dorsal mPFC were active for both self and other judgments, self judgments were more strongly associated with ventral relative to dorsal mPFC activity across all studies.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Relationship to Default Mode Hypothesis
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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 argue for a distributed rather than localizationist account of mPFC organization and support an emerging view on the functional heterogeneity of mPFC.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The null hypothesis for the Monte Carlo simulation was a uniform random distribution of peaks within each comparison in gray matter in the standard brain.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This stands in contrast to prior work that has associated self-related judgments with right-lateralized activity (Keenan, Ganis, Freund, & Pascual-Leone, 2000; Keenan, Wheeler, Gallup, & Pascual-Leone, 2000).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Whole-Brain Comparisons of Self and Other-Related Judgments
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Keenan, Ganis, Freund, & Pascual-Leone, 2000
- Not checked yetcites Keenan, Wheeler, Gallup, & Pascual-Leone, 2000
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
“Contrasts were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: (1) They involved patients with major psychiatric disease; (2) They involved participants on a therapeutic regimen; (3) They involved children under 18 years of age; (4) They were non-contrast analyses (e.g. parametric analyses).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Methods > Identification of Studies
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. 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
“Our ability to draw inferences about the meaning of these data is limited, however, by the fact that there is as of yet no clear model of the functional organization of mPFC with respect to processes that support judgments of self and others.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Introduction
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. 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
“Coordinates were verified by at least 2 independent investigators.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Methods > Identification of Studies
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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 reflect a spatial processing gradient, such that increasingly ventral or dorsal mPFC activation were increasingly associated with either self- or other-related judgments, respectively.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Using a database of 107 published neuroimaging studies we reported evidence for self- and other-related judgments being (1) supported by both common and distinct groups of regions that include many implicated in mentalizing in prior work, and (2) associated with a spatial mentalizing gradient within mPFC, with increasingly ventral activation being increasingly associated with self-related judgment”
- Also stated in: § Discerning the Spatial and Functional Organization of mPFC · plain
“Thus, the present data argue that the representation of processes supporting judgments about the self and others in mPFC is organized as a gradient rather than discrete modules.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Results > Logistic Regression: Discerning the Spatial/Functional Organization of mPFC
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
In the paper
“All contrasts were coded by at least 2 trained coders. Any disagreements between coders were arbitrated after independent coding in order to any resolve any discrepancies (Kober et al., 2008).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Methods > Study Coding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kober et al., 2008 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. 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
“Results survived whole-brain correction if they either met height-based criteria alone (i.e. sufficiently large activation proportion differential, regardless of extent), or if they met cluster extent-based criteria. Height (i.e. activation proportion) and extent thresholds varied for each MKDA, but all were significant at p<0.05, FWE-corrected.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Methods > Data analysis overview
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. 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
“Using a binary logistic regression analysis that was independent of the MKDA and independent of any spatial smoothing, we found that self or other judgment status was significantly predicted by location along the dorsal-ventral axis in mPFC.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Discerning the Spatial and Functional Organization of mPFC
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. 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, increasingly ventral mPFC is more associated with processing self-relevant judgments, whereas dorsal mPFC is relatively more attuned to focusing attention on making judgments about the external world.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Discerning the Spatial and Functional Organization of mPFC
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, the caudate body activity reported here may reflect a connection between self-focused mentalizing and generalized reward processing, consistent with the notion that there are inherently rewarding aspects to the self (Enzi, de Greck, Prosch, Tempelmann, & Northoff, 2009).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Whole-Brain Comparisons of Self and Other-Related Judgments
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Enzi, de Greck, Prosch, Tempelmann, & Northoff, 2009
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Connectivity analyses within anterior mPFC have revealed a ventrally mediated viscerolimbic affective and self-relevance network (with connections to amygdala, insula, and nucleus accumbens) and a dorsally mediated cognitive network (with connections to dorsolateral PFC and hippocampus) (Kim & Whalen, 2009; Price, Carmichael, & Drevets, 1996; Schmitz & Johnson, 2006).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Discerning the Spatial and Functional Organization of mPFC
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This view is also consistent with the notion, derived from a recent review of the functional neuroimaging literature, that vmPFC supports relatively stimulus-driven processes that may be important for computing the value of stimuli in a current judgment context, whereas dmPFC supports more reflective processes used for selecting higher level social and affective meanings (Olsson & Ochsner, 2008).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Discerning the Spatial and Functional Organization of mPFC
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Olsson & Ochsner, 2008
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. 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
“In all cases, contrasts comparing only the categories represented at the end-points of a gradient can only show apparent double dissociations. In order to detect a gradient, one needs a finer-grained analysis that takes into account regions spanning the end points - as we did with the logistic regression used here.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Discerning the Spatial and Functional Organization of mPFC
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It is notable, however, that Gusnard and colleagues (2001) addressed this question with a neuroimaging task involving internally versus externally-directed attention and came to a divergent conclusion, finding internally-directed (self-referential) attention to be more associated with dorsal mPFC activity.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Self and Other Judgments Reveals a Spatial Gradient for Mentalizing in Medial Prefrontal Cortex > Discussion > Relationship to Default Mode Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gusnard et al., 2001 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The null hypothesis for the Monte Carlo simulation was a uniform random distribution of peaks within each comparison in gray matter in the standard brain.
“The null hypothesis was a uniform random distribution of peaks within each comparison in gray matter in the standard brain.”
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
“Ex-partner versus Friend was predicted by increased activity in dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), right temporal parietal junction (TPJ) and precuneus, which are reliably associated with mentalizing about others38,39, and several other regions associated with negative emotion and its regulation20,40,41, including thalamus, supplementary motor area and inferior frontal gyrus.”
From Separate neural representations for physical pain and social rejection (2014) · cites this paper as [38]
Citations
Cites
Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224 · Cited by 21,995
A default mode of brain function
Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.676 · Cited by 12,190
How do you feel — now? The anterior insula and human awareness
(Bud) Craig, A. D. (2009) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2555 · Cited by 6,657 · cited 2×
“…are consistent with the results of another recent self–other meta-analysis (Qin et al., 2012; Qin & Northoff, 2011) and with a role for interoception in self-related awareness that involves the anterior insula (Denny, Ochsner, Weber, & Wager, in preparation; Craig, 2009; Wager & Barrett, 2004).”
ResultTalairach, J., Tournoux, P., & Rayport, M. (1988) · Thieme eBooks · Cited by 5,058
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 · cited 2×
“If this hypothesis is correct, one might expect to see a spatial processing gradient within mPFC (Zaki & Ochsner, 2011; Olsson & Ochsner, 2008; Amodio & Frith, 2006; Ochsner, 2004).”
BackgroundGusnard, D. A., Akbudak, E., Shulman, G. L., & Raichle, M. E. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.071043098 · Cited by 2,997
Self-referential processing in our brain—A meta-analysis of imaging studies on the self
Northoff, G., Heinzel, A., de Greck, M., Bermpohl, F., Dobrowolny, H., & Panksepp, J. (2006) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.002 · Cited by 2,792
Wandering minds: the default network and stimulus-independent thought
Mason, M. F., Norton, M. I., Van Horn, J. D., Wegner, D. M., Grafton, S. T., & Macrae, C. N. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1131295 · Cited by 2,792
The brain basis of emotion: a meta-analytic review
Lindquist, K. A., Wager, T. D., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Barrett, L. F. (2012) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x11000446 · Cited by 2,320
Self-citationFunctional imaging of ‘theory of mind’
Gallagher, H. L., & Frith, C. D. (2003) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(02)00025-6 · Cited by 2,092
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Andrews‐Hanna, J. R., Smallwood, J., & Spreng, R. N. (2014) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.12360 · Cited by 2,102
Cognitive Reappraisal of Emotion: A Meta-Analysis of Human Neuroimaging Studies
Buhle, J. T., Silvers, J. A., Wager, T. D., Lopez, R., Onyemekwu, C., Kober, H., Weber, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2014) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bht154 · Cited by 1,896
Self-citationFractionating theory of mind: a meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies
Schurz, M., Radua, J., Aichhorn, M., Richlan, F., & Perner, J. (2014) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.009 · Cited by 1,656
Reconstructing and deconstructing the self: cognitive mechanisms in meditation practice
Dahl, C. J., Lutz, A., & Davidson, R. J. (2015) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.001 · Cited by 809
Emotion and the prefrontal cortex: an integrative review
Dixon, M. L., Thiruchselvam, R., Todd, R., & Christoff, K. (2017) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000096 · Cited by 745
Metadata
- Authors
- Denny, B. T., Kober, H., Wager, T. D., & Ochsner, K. N.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- 2Yale University
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2012-08-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1742-1752
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- PMC
- PMC3806720
- OpenAlex
- W2121677155
- Semantic Scholar
- ed0070456b9770cbce9d09e1ff1311a2be401caa
- Cited by
- 830
- References
- 98
- Citations by year
- 2026: 49 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 85 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 3.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Neurosciences Foundation
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Mental Health (R21 MH528021, R01MH076137, R21MH082308)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD069178)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Keywords
- self-other judgment, mentalization, medial prefrontal cortex, functional heterogeneity, anterior temporal pole, posterior cingulate cortex, insula, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, self-referential processing
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Self Concept, Prefrontal Cortex, Theory of Mind, Functional Neuroimaging
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
