controlled and automatic mindreading in children and adults
DESCRIPTION
Controlled and automatic mindreading in children and adults. Ian Apperly. What is “Theory of Mind”?. “Folk psychology”, “Perspective-taking”, “Social cognition” Essential for everyday social interaction and communication False belief tasks as a paradigm case - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Controlled and automatic mindreading in children and adults
Ian Apperly
What is “Theory of Mind”?• “Folk psychology”, “Perspective-taking”, “Social cognition”• Essential for everyday social interaction and communication
• False belief tasks as a paradigm case• (e.g., Wimmer & Perner, 1983)
– These tasks ensure that participant must judge from other person’s point of view
What is “Theory of Mind”?• “Folk psychology”, “Perspective-taking”, “Social cognition”• Essential for everyday social interaction and communication
• False belief tasks as a paradigm case• (e.g., Wimmer & Perner, 1983)
– These tasks ensure that participant must judge from other person’s point of view
• Significant developments from infancy to early childhood
• Disproportionately impaired in autism and several other genetic and psychiatric disorders
What is “Theory of Mind”?• “Folk psychology”, “Perspective-taking”, “Social cognition”• Essential for everyday social interaction and communication
• False belief tasks as a paradigm case• (e.g., Wimmer & Perner, 1983)
– These tasks ensure that participant must judge from other person’s point of view
• Significant developments from infancy to early childhood
• Disproportionately impaired in autism and several other genetic and psychiatric disorders
• Identifiable neural network
Temporo-parietal junction / pSTSTemporal poleMedial prefrontal cortex
Lateral view
TPJ
TP
Medial view
mPF
C
What is “Theory of Mind”?
• Adults?
Temporo-parietal junction / pSTSTemporal poleMedial prefrontal cortex
Lateral view
TPJ
TP
Medial view
mPF
C
Overview
• Part 1– Evidence (from adults) that mindreading
• Often requires cognitive control• May recruit specialised neural systems• May sometimes operate efficiently and automatically
• Part 2– How do these characteristics arise?
Evidence that mindreading is a flexible but demanding ability
• In Adults....• Impaired executive processes can lead to severe egocentrism
– (e.g., Samson, Apperly, Kathirgamanathan & Humphreys, 2005)
• Belief reasoning requires cognitive control– (e.g., Bull, Philips & Conway, 2007)
• Belief inferences are not made automatically – (Apperly, Samson, Riggs, Simpson & Chiavarino, 2006; Back & Apperly, 2010)
• Belief inferences are not used automatically– (e.g., Keysar, Lin & Barr, 2003; Apperly et al., 2010)
• Holding false beliefs briefly in mind has a measurable processing cost
– (Apperly, Back et al., 2008)
• Recursion (e.g., beliefs about beliefs) remains challenging– E.g., Mckinnon & Moscovitch (2007)
• And this converges with evidence from children…• .
A deductive Belief-Desire task(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)
A deductive Belief-Desire task(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)
NB only Belief factor involves a perspective difference
A deductive Belief-Desire task(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)
• B- is harder than B+• D- is harder than D+
• (Replicates Apperly et al. 2011, Ch. Dev. Who found same pattern for adults and older children)
Belief (True vs. False) TPJ, ACC, IFGDesire (Like vs. Hate) TPJ, ACC
Overlap
Orthogonal contrasts of varying beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)
Harder conditions recruit EF, and attention/ToM areas
Belief (True vs. False) TPJ, ACC, IFGDesire (Like vs. Hate) TPJ, ACC
Overlap
Orthogonal contrasts of varying beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)
Resisting egocentrism
Belief (True vs. False) TPJ, ACC, IFGDesire (Like vs. Hate) TPJ, ACC
Overlap
Orthogonal contrasts of varying beliefs and desires(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, 2012)
Notably no mPFC
Evidence that mindreading is a flexible but demanding ability
• In Adults....• Impaired executive processes can lead to severe egocentrism
– (e.g., Samson, Apperly, Kathirgamanathan & Humphreys, 2005)
• Belief reasoning requires cognitive control– (e.g., Bull, Philips & Conway, 2007)
• Belief inferences are not made automatically – (Apperly, Samson, Riggs, Simpson & Chiavarino, 2006; Back & Apperly, 2010)
• Belief inferences are not used automatically– (e.g., Keysar, Lin & Barr, 2003; Apperly et al., 2010)
• Holding false beliefs briefly in mind has a measurable processing cost– (Apperly, Back et al., 2008)
• Recursion (e.g., beliefs about beliefs) remains challenging– E.g., Mckinnon & Moscovitch (2007)
• And this converges with evidence from children…
• Mindreading seems to depend on processes for attention, working memory and executive control
• Recruitment reflects functional components of mindreading• .
Specialised neural systems for Mindreading?(Saxe & Kanwisher, 2003......)
False belief (FB) sample storyJohn told Emily that he had a Porsche.Actually, his car is a Ford. Emilydoesn’t know anything about carsthough, so she believed John.—When Emily sees John’s car shethinks it is aporsche ford
False photograph (FP) sample storyA photograph was taken of an apple hangingon a tree branch. The film took half an hour todevelop. In the meantime, a strongwind blew the apple to the ground.—The developed photograph shows the apple on theground branch
Specialised neural systems for Mindreading?(Saxe & Kanwisher, 2003......)
False belief (FB) sample storyJohn told Emily that he had a Porsche.Actually, his car is a Ford. Emilydoesn’t know anything about carsthough, so she believed John.—When Emily sees John’s car shethinks it is aporsche ford
False photograph (FP) sample storyA photograph was taken of an apple hangingon a tree branch. The film took half an hour todevelop. In the meantime, a strongwind blew the apple to the ground.—The developed photograph shows the apple on theground branch
R-TPJ shows greatest specificity for reasoning about mental states. Contrast with mPFC, which also shows activity for thinking about body states, internal sensations and personal characteristics.
Evidence that mindreading is a flexible but demanding ability
• In Adults....• Impaired executive processes can lead to severe egocentrism
– (e.g., Samson, Apperly, Kathirgamanathan & Humphreys, 2005)
• Belief reasoning requires cognitive control– (e.g., Bull, Philips & Conway, 2007)
• Belief inferences are not made automatically – (Apperly, Samson, Riggs, Simpson & Chiavarino, 2006; Back & Apperly, 2010)
• Belief inferences are not used automatically– (e.g., Keysar, Lin & Barr, 2003; Apperly et al., 2010)
• Holding false beliefs briefly in mind has a measurable processing cost– (Apperly, Back et al., 2008)
• Recursion (e.g., beliefs about beliefs) remains challenging– E.g., Mckinnon & Moscovitch (2007)
• And this converges with evidence from children…
• Mindreading seems to depend on processes for attention, working memory and executive control
• Recruitment reflects functional components of mindreading• Quite strong evidence for some neural specialisation• .
Evidence that mindreading is an efficient but inflexible processes?
• Can all mindreading really be so demanding?• Two systems for mindreading? (e.g., Apperly &
Butterfill, 2009, Psych. Rev.)
Evidence that mindreading is an efficient but inflexible processes?
• Can all mindreading really be so demanding?• Two systems for mindreading? (e.g., Apperly &
Butterfill, 2009, Psych. Rev.)
• Evidence of involuntary inference of:• Simple visual perspective (Samson et al., 2010)• Agent’s spatial frame of reference (Zwickell, 2011)• Agent’s “false belief” (Kovacs et al., 2010)
• Sometimes without explicit awareness• Schneider et al. (2011)
• Without need for “executive control”• Qureshi et al. (2010)
• This pattern converges with evidence of mindreading in infants….
Automatic perspective-taking?(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP)
Only ever judge “self” – how many dots you can see
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
Self - avatar distractor Self - rectangle distractor
Experiment 3Re
actio
n tim
e (m
s)
Consistent
Inconsistent* ns
Automatic perspective-taking?(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP)
Only ever judge “self” – how many dots you can see
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
Self - avatar distractor Self - rectangle distractor
Experiment 3Re
actio
n tim
e (m
s)
Consistent
Inconsistent* ns
Automatic perspective-taking?(Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite et al., 2010, JEP:HPP)
Only ever judge “self” – how many dots you can see
Such effects are exaggerated under cognitive load (Qureshi et al., 2010)
Overview
• Part 1– Evidence that mindreading
• Often requires cognitive control• May sometimes operate efficiently and automatically• May recruit specialised neural systems
• Part 2– How do these characteristics arise?– We must look at developmental change
Effortful & Flexible
Efficient & limited
Temporo-parietal junction / pSTSTemporal poleMedial prefrontal cortex
Lateral view
TPJ
TP
Medial view
mPF
C
Effortful & Flexible
Efficient & limited
Temporo-parietal junction / pSTSTemporal poleMedial prefrontal cortex
Lateral view
TPJ
TP
Medial view
mPF
C
?
(+ Language, Executive function, Knowledge) Autom
atisation
Effortful & Flexible
Efficient & limited
How do we end up with automatic processes?
Infant system grows up
a.
(+ Language, Executive function, Knowledge) Autom
atisation
(+ Language, Executive function, Knowledge)
Infant system grows up
Infant system remains intact
Effortful & Flexible
Efficient & limited
Effortful & Flexible
Efficient & limited
a.
b.
How do we end up with automatic processes?
(+ Language, Executive function, Knowledge) Autom
atisation
(+ Language, Executive function, Knowledge)
Infant system grows up
Infant system remains intact
Effortful & Flexible
Efficient & limited
Effortful & Flexible
Efficient & limited
a.
b.
How do we end up with automatic processes?
Both exist in development
What is the origin of automatic perspective-taking?
Main effect of consistencySignificant interaction
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
Self Other Self Other Self Other
Discs vary Figure varies Blocked
ConsistentInconsistentRT
(ms)
Altercentric interference = indication of automatic perspective calculation
Evidence for automatisation?Surtees & Apperly (2012) Child Development
“You see 2”Or“He sees 2”
120 children aged 6-10 and adults
Automatisation: Predict younger children to suffer less interference for self judgements.
Original automaticity:Predict equivalent interference at all ages.
Evidence for automatisation? Surtees & Apperly (2012) Child Development
ConsistentInconsistent
Consistency
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Res
pons
e Ti
me
(ms)
OTHER SELF
Consistent
Inconsistent
Consistency
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Erro
r Pro
port
ion/
1
Fig. 2. Mean Response Times and Error Proportions of children and adults in experiments 1A and 1B (Bars indicate standard errors).
6 8 10 Adult* 8
Age 6 8 10 Adult* 8
1A 1BExperiment
6 8 10 Adult* 8
1A 1B
Age 6 8 10 Adult* 8
1A 1BExperiment 1A 1B
ConsistentInconsistent
Consistency
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Res
pons
e Ti
me
(ms)
OTHER SELF
Consistent
InconsistentInconsistent
Consistency
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Erro
r Pro
port
ion/
1
Fig. 2. Mean Response Times and Error Proportions of children and adults in experiments 1A and 1B (Bars indicate standard errors).
6 8 10 Adult* 8
Age 6 8 10 Adult* 8
1A 1B1A 1BExperiment
6 8 10 Adult* 8
1A 1B
6 8 10 Adult* 8
1A 1B1A 1B
Age 6 8 10 Adult* 8
1A 1B1A 1BExperiment 1A 1B1A 1B
“You see 2”Or“He sees 2”
120 children aged 6-10 and adults
Automatic perspective-taking?
– In adults, Level-1 visual perspectives may be calculated even when unnecessary and unhelpful
– Automatic?
– What is the developmental origin of automaticity?
– Original automaticity?
– Automatisation?No evidence of automatization
Neural specialisation through development
• E.g., Reading development
• correlation with children’s reading skill– Yellow = +ve – Blue = -ve
• Neural specialisation emerges• Unlikely to be determined by an
evolved programmeTurkeltaub et al. 2003
Developmental specialisation of a rTPJ(Gweon et al. 2012, Ch. Dev.)
• 5-11Y children, and adults• 3 story conditions in fMRI
– Physical– Social– Mental (+Social)
• Battery of mindreading tasks outside of scanner
Developmental specialisation of a rTPJ(Gweon et al. 2012, Ch. Dev.)
Developmental specialisation of a rTPJ(Gweon et al. 2012, Ch. Dev.)
Developmental specialisation of a rTPJ(Gweon et al. 2012, Ch. Dev.)
Differentiation of social and mental in rTPJ was correlated with mindreading success outside of the scanner
Summary
• Part 1– Evidence that mindreading
• Often requires cognitive control• May sometimes operate efficiently and
automatically• May recruit specialised neural systems
• Part 2– Development must be explained– Development constrains theories of the
mature system
Temporo-parietal junction / pSTSTemporal poleMedial prefrontal cortex
Lateral view
TPJ
TP
Medial view
mPF
C
Social abduction(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, in prep)
Social abduction(Hartwright, Apperly & Hansen, subm.)
Selective for D?
TB vs. FB
Green = D? vs. D-&D+
Green = D? vs. D-&D+&FB&TB