4.7 Review

Understanding the minds of others: A neuroimaging meta-analysis

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 276-291

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.020

关键词

Theory of mind; fMRI; Activation likelihood estimation; Medial prefrontal cortex; Temporoparietal junction; Meta-analytic connectivity modelling

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [DE130100120]
  2. Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship [100458]
  3. ARC [DP130100559]
  4. ARC Australian Laureate Fellowship [FL110100103]
  5. ARC Science of Learning Research Centre [SR120300015]
  6. ARC Centre of Excellence for Integrative Brain Function (ARC Centre Grant) [CE140100007]
  7. Australian Research Council [DE130100120] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Theory of mind (ToM) is an important skill that refers broadly to the capacity to understand the mental states of others. A large number of neuroimaging studies have focused on identifying the functional brain regions involved in ToM, but many important questions remain with respect to the neural networks implicated in specific types of ToM tasks. In the present study, we conducted a series of activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analyses on 144 datasets (involving 3150 participants) to address these questions. The ALE results revealed common regions shared across all ToM tasks and broader task parameters, but also some important dissociations. In terms of commonalities, consistent activation was identified in the medial prefrontal cortex and bilateral temporoparietal junction. On the other hand, ALE contrast analyses on our dataset, as well as meta-analytic connectivity modelling (MACM) analyses on the BrainMap database, indicated that different types of ToM tasks reliably elicit activity in unique brain areas. Our findings provide the most accurate picture to date of the neural networks that underpin ToM function. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据