Projecting one’s own spatial bias onto others during a theory-of-mind task
Edited by Michael E. Goldberg, Columbia University College of Physicians, New York, NY, and approved December 18, 2017 (received for review October 23, 2017)
Commentary
January 31, 2018
Significance
Most people have an intrinsic spatial bias—many are better at processing objects to the left, whereas some are biased to the right. Here, we found that this subtle bias in one’s own awareness is mirrored in one’s ability to process what is likely to be in other people’s minds. If you are biased toward processing your own right side of space, then you may be faster at recognizing when someone else processes an object to his or her right side. One possible interpretation is that we process the space around us, and understand how others process the space around them, using at least partially shared mechanisms.
Abstract
Many people show a left-right bias in visual processing. We measured spatial bias in neurotypical participants using a variant of the line bisection task. In the same participants, we measured performance in a social cognition task. This theory-of-mind task measured whether each participant had a processing-speed bias toward the right of, or left of, a cartoon agent about which the participant was thinking. Crucially, the cartoon was rotated such that what was left and right with respect to the cartoon was up and down with respect to the participant. Thus, a person’s own left-right bias could not align directly onto left and right with respect to the cartoon head. Performance on the two tasks was significantly correlated. People who had a natural bias toward processing their own left side of space were quicker to process how the cartoon might think about objects to the left side of its face, and likewise for a rightward bias. One possible interpretation of these results is that the act of processing one’s own personal space shares some of the same underlying mechanisms as the social cognitive act of reconstructing someone else’s processing of their space.
Acknowledgments
We thank Kajsa Igelström for comments. This work was supported by the Princeton Neuroscience Institute Innovation Fund.
References
1
AD Milner, M Brechmann, L Pagliarini, To halve and to halve not: An analysis of line bisection judgements in normal subjects. Neuropsychologia 30, 515–526 (1992).
2
G Jewell, ME McCourt, Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia 38, 93–110 (2000).
3
SM Szczepanski, S Kastner, Shifting attentional priorities: Control of spatial attention through hemispheric competition. J Neurosci 33, 5411–5421 (2013).
4
JL Brooks, S Della Sala, S Darling, Representational pseudoneglect: A review. Neuropsychol Rev 24, 148–165 (2014).
5
MSA Graziano, S Kastner, Human consciousness and its relationship to social neuroscience: A novel hypothesis. Cogn Neurosci 2, 98–113 (2011).
6
H Wimmer, J Perner, Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13, 103–128 (1983).
7
HM Wellman, D Cross, J Watson, Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Dev 72, 655–684 (2001).
8
R Turner, FM Felisberti, Measuring mindreading: A review of behavioral approaches to testing cognitive and affective mental state attribution in neurologically typical adults. Front Psychol 8, 47 (2017).
9
DH Brainard, The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10, 433–436 (1997).
10
M Kleiner, D Brainard, D Pelli, What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception 36, 1–16 (2007).
11
KM Heilman, E Valenstein, Mechanisms underlying hemispatial neglect. Ann Neurol 5, 166–170 (1979).
12
PW Halligan, GR Fink, JC Marshall, G Vallar, Spatial cognition: Evidence from visual neglect. Trends Cogn Sci 7, 125–133 (2003).
13
M Corbetta, Hemispatial neglect: Clinic, pathogenesis, and treatment. Semin Neurol 34, 514–523 (2014).
14
IA Heber, S Siebertz, M Wolter, T Kuhlen, B Fimm, Horizontal and vertical pseudoneglect in peri- and extrapersonal space. Brain Cogn 73, 160–166 (2010).
15
O Blanke, et al., Linking out-of-body experience and self processing to mental own-body imagery at the temporoparietal junction. J Neurosci 25, 550–557 (2005).
16
P Ruby, J Decety, Effect of subjective perspective taking during simulation of action: A PET investigation of agency. Nat Neurosci 4, 546–550 (2001).
17
N David, et al., Neural representations of self versus other: Visual-spatial perspective taking and agency in a virtual ball-tossing game. J Cogn Neurosci 18, 898–910 (2006).
18
ÁM Kovács, E Téglás, AD Endress, The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science 330, 1830–1834 (2010).
19
MSA Graziano Consciousness and the Social Brain (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, 2013).
20
G Vallar, D Perani, The anatomy of unilateral neglect after right-hemisphere stroke lesions. A clinical/CT-scan correlation study in man. Neuropsychologia 24, 609–622 (1986).
21
YT Kelly, TW Webb, JD Meier, MJ Arcaro, MSA Graziano, Attributing awareness to oneself and to others. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 5012–5017 (2014).
22
R Saxe, A Wexler, Making sense of another mind: The role of the right temporo-parietal junction. Neuropsychologia 43, 1391–1399 (2005).
23
TW Webb, KM Igelström, A Schurger, MSA Graziano, Cortical networks involved in visual awareness independent of visual attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113, 13923–13928 (2016).
24
KM Igelström, MSA Graziano, The inferior parietal lobule and temporoparietal junction: A network perspective. Neuropsychologia 105, 70–83 (2017).
25
JP Mitchell, Activity in right temporo-parietal junction is not selective for theory-of-mind. Cereb Cortex 18, 262–271 (2008).
26
J Scholz, C Triantafyllou, S Whitfield-Gabrieli, EN Brown, R Saxe, Distinct regions of right temporo-parietal junction are selective for theory of mind and exogenous attention. PLoS One 4, e4869 (2009).
27
K Igelström, TW Webb, YT Kelly, MSA Graziano, Topographical organization of attentional, social and memory processes in the human temporoparietal cortex. eNeuro 3, ENEURO.0060-16.2016 (2016).
Information & Authors
Information
Published in
Classifications
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by PNAS. This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).
Submission history
Published online: January 16, 2018
Published in issue: February 13, 2018
Keywords
Acknowledgments
We thank Kajsa Igelström for comments. This work was supported by the Princeton Neuroscience Institute Innovation Fund.
Notes
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
See Commentary on page 1408.
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citation statements
Altmetrics
Citations
Cite this article
115 (7) E1684-E1689,
Export the article citation data by selecting a format from the list below and clicking Export.
Cited by
Loading...
View Options
View options
PDF format
Download this article as a PDF file
DOWNLOAD PDFLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Personal login Institutional LoginRecommend to a librarian
Recommend PNAS to a LibrarianPurchase options
Purchase this article to access the full text.