Mentalizing under uncertainty: dissociated neural responses to ambiguous and unambiguous mental state inferences. Jenkins, A. C & Mitchell, J. P Cerebral cortex, 20(2):404--410, February, 2010. ![Mentalizing under uncertainty: dissociated neural responses to ambiguous and unambiguous mental state inferences [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex The ability to read the minds of others (i.e., to mentalize) requires that perceivers understand a wide range of different kinds of mental states, including not only others' beliefs and knowledge but also their feelings, desires, and preferences. Moreover, although such inferences may occasionally rely on observable features of a situation, perceivers more typically mentalize under conditions of “uncertainty,” in which they must generate plausible hypotheses about a target's mental state from ambiguous or otherwise underspecified information. Here, we use functional neuroimaging to dissociate the neural bases of these 2 distinct social-cognitive challenges: 1) mentalizing about different types of mental states (beliefs vs. preferences) and 2) mentalizing under conditions of varying ambiguity. Although these 2 aspects of mentalizing have typically been confounded in earlier research, we observed a double dissociation between the brain regions sensitive to type of mental state and ambiguity. Whereas ventral and dorsal aspects of medial prefrontal cortex responded more during ambiguous than unambiguous inferences regardless of the type of mental state, the right temporoparietal junction was sensitive to the distinction between beliefs and preferences irrespective of certainty. These results underscore the emerging consensus that, rather than comprising a single mental operation, social cognition makes flexible use of different processes as a function of the particular demands of the social context.
@article{jenkins_mentalizing_2010,
title = {Mentalizing under uncertainty: dissociated neural responses to ambiguous and unambiguous mental state inferences},
volume = {20},
issn = {1047-3211, 1460-2199},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp109},
doi = {10.1093/cercor/bhp109},
abstract = {The ability to read the minds of others (i.e., to mentalize) requires that perceivers understand a wide range of different kinds of mental states, including not only others' beliefs and knowledge but also their feelings, desires, and preferences. Moreover, although such inferences may occasionally rely on observable features of a situation, perceivers more typically mentalize under conditions of “uncertainty,” in which they must generate plausible hypotheses about a target's mental state from ambiguous or otherwise underspecified information. Here, we use functional neuroimaging to dissociate the neural bases of these 2 distinct social-cognitive challenges: 1) mentalizing about different types of mental states (beliefs vs. preferences) and 2) mentalizing under conditions of varying ambiguity. Although these 2 aspects of mentalizing have typically been confounded in earlier research, we observed a double dissociation between the brain regions sensitive to type of mental state and ambiguity. Whereas ventral and dorsal aspects of medial prefrontal cortex responded more during ambiguous than unambiguous inferences regardless of the type of mental state, the right temporoparietal junction was sensitive to the distinction between beliefs and preferences irrespective of certainty. These results underscore the emerging consensus that, rather than comprising a single mental operation, social cognition makes flexible use of different processes as a function of the particular demands of the social context.},
language = {en},
number = {2},
journal = {Cerebral cortex},
author = {Jenkins, Adrianna C and Mitchell, Jason P},
month = feb,
year = {2010},
pmid = {19478034},
keywords = {Mental Health/Bias: Cognitive Psychology},
pages = {404--410}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"CDjxWvEpgQ3d88qFn","bibbaseid":"jenkins-mitchell-mentalizingunderuncertaintydissociatedneuralresponsestoambiguousandunambiguousmentalstateinferences-2010","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-03-15T15:56:59.215Z","title":"Mentalizing under uncertainty: dissociated neural responses to ambiguous and unambiguous mental state inferences","author_short":["Jenkins, A. C","Mitchell, J. P"],"year":2010,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero/davidlloyd3","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Mentalizing under uncertainty: dissociated neural responses to ambiguous and unambiguous mental state inferences","volume":"20","issn":"1047-3211, 1460-2199","url":"http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp109","doi":"10.1093/cercor/bhp109","abstract":"The ability to read the minds of others (i.e., to mentalize) requires that perceivers understand a wide range of different kinds of mental states, including not only others' beliefs and knowledge but also their feelings, desires, and preferences. Moreover, although such inferences may occasionally rely on observable features of a situation, perceivers more typically mentalize under conditions of “uncertainty,” in which they must generate plausible hypotheses about a target's mental state from ambiguous or otherwise underspecified information. Here, we use functional neuroimaging to dissociate the neural bases of these 2 distinct social-cognitive challenges: 1) mentalizing about different types of mental states (beliefs vs. preferences) and 2) mentalizing under conditions of varying ambiguity. Although these 2 aspects of mentalizing have typically been confounded in earlier research, we observed a double dissociation between the brain regions sensitive to type of mental state and ambiguity. Whereas ventral and dorsal aspects of medial prefrontal cortex responded more during ambiguous than unambiguous inferences regardless of the type of mental state, the right temporoparietal junction was sensitive to the distinction between beliefs and preferences irrespective of certainty. These results underscore the emerging consensus that, rather than comprising a single mental operation, social cognition makes flexible use of different processes as a function of the particular demands of the social context.","language":"en","number":"2","journal":"Cerebral cortex","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Jenkins"],"firstnames":["Adrianna","C"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Mitchell"],"firstnames":["Jason","P"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"February","year":"2010","pmid":"19478034","keywords":"Mental Health/Bias: Cognitive Psychology","pages":"404--410","bibtex":"@article{jenkins_mentalizing_2010,\n\ttitle = {Mentalizing under uncertainty: dissociated neural responses to ambiguous and unambiguous mental state inferences},\n\tvolume = {20},\n\tissn = {1047-3211, 1460-2199},\n\turl = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp109},\n\tdoi = {10.1093/cercor/bhp109},\n\tabstract = {The ability to read the minds of others (i.e., to mentalize) requires that perceivers understand a wide range of different kinds of mental states, including not only others' beliefs and knowledge but also their feelings, desires, and preferences. Moreover, although such inferences may occasionally rely on observable features of a situation, perceivers more typically mentalize under conditions of “uncertainty,” in which they must generate plausible hypotheses about a target's mental state from ambiguous or otherwise underspecified information. Here, we use functional neuroimaging to dissociate the neural bases of these 2 distinct social-cognitive challenges: 1) mentalizing about different types of mental states (beliefs vs. preferences) and 2) mentalizing under conditions of varying ambiguity. Although these 2 aspects of mentalizing have typically been confounded in earlier research, we observed a double dissociation between the brain regions sensitive to type of mental state and ambiguity. Whereas ventral and dorsal aspects of medial prefrontal cortex responded more during ambiguous than unambiguous inferences regardless of the type of mental state, the right temporoparietal junction was sensitive to the distinction between beliefs and preferences irrespective of certainty. These results underscore the emerging consensus that, rather than comprising a single mental operation, social cognition makes flexible use of different processes as a function of the particular demands of the social context.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\tjournal = {Cerebral cortex},\n\tauthor = {Jenkins, Adrianna C and Mitchell, Jason P},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tpmid = {19478034},\n\tkeywords = {Mental Health/Bias: Cognitive Psychology},\n\tpages = {404--410}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Jenkins, A. C","Mitchell, J. P"],"key":"jenkins_mentalizing_2010","id":"jenkins_mentalizing_2010","bibbaseid":"jenkins-mitchell-mentalizingunderuncertaintydissociatedneuralresponsestoambiguousandunambiguousmentalstateinferences-2010","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp109"},"keyword":["Mental Health/Bias: Cognitive Psychology"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["mentalizing","under","uncertainty","dissociated","neural","responses","ambiguous","unambiguous","mental","state","inferences","jenkins","mitchell"],"keywords":["mental health/bias: cognitive psychology"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["kRLSZGSDAgwZPh2tM"]}