4.5 Article

Interpretation of mentalistic actions and sarcastic remarks: Effects of frontal and posterior lesions on mentalising

Journal

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
Volume 45, Issue 8, Pages 1725-1734

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.12.021

Keywords

social cognition; theory of mind; mentalising; sarcasm; frontal lobes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent work has linked mentalising ability to ventromedial frontal brain regions, the temporal poles and the temporo-parietal junction. The present study set out to examine the performance of participants with focal frontal and posterior lesions and a matched healthy control group on mentalising tasks with different types of pragmatic materials. Four types of materials were used: control physical events, human actions, and direct and indirect sarcastic remarks. Ability to interpret these was tested by asking participants both to explain the events, actions or remarks, and then to choose the best solution from four alternatives presented. Those with frontal lesions were impaired in comprehension of each of the sets of mentalistic materials, but were intact in comprehension of the control non-mentalistic items. There was some evidence linking the generation of free responses for the mentalistic materials to lateral frontal regions; this may be mediated by executive skills. There was also evidence linking selection amongst alternative solutions to right frontal regions, particularly ventromedial areas. There was little evidence that posterior regions played any significant part, at least for the present mentalistic materials. Errors in sarcasm comprehension made by participants with frontal lesions revealed that these were not always literal in nature, suggesting two separable components in comprehension: appreciating that a meaning is not intended literally, and understanding the specific meaning in the social context. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available