↓ Skip to main content

Implicit false-belief processing in the human brain

Overview of attention for article published in NeuroImage, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
weibo
1 weibo user

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implicit false-belief processing in the human brain
Published in
NeuroImage, July 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.07.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dana Schneider, Virginia P. Slaughter, Stefanie I. Becker, Paul E. Dux

Abstract

Eye-movement patterns in 'Sally-Anne' tasks reflect humans' ability to implicitly process the mental states of others, particularly false-beliefs - a key theory of mind (ToM) operation. It has recently been proposed that an efficient ToM system, which operates in the absence of awareness (implicit ToM, iToM), subserves the analysis of belief-like states. This contrasts to consciously available belief processing, performed by the explicit ToM system (eToM). The frontal, temporal and parietal cortices are engaged when humans explicitly 'mentalize' about others' beliefs. However, the neural underpinnings of implicit false-belief processing and the extent to which they draw on networks involved in explicit general-belief processing are unknown. Here, participants watched 'Sally-Anne' movies while fMRI and eye-tracking measures were acquired simultaneously. Participants displayed eye-movements consistent with implicit false-belief processing. After independently localizing the brain areas involved in explicit general-belief processing, only the left anterior superior temporal sulcus and precuneus revealed greater blood-oxygen-level-dependent activity for false- relative to true-belief trials in our iToM paradigm. No such difference was found for the right temporal-parietal junction despite significant activity in this area. These findings fractionate brain regions that are associated with explicit general ToM reasoning and false-belief processing in the absence of awareness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Belgium 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 184 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 21%
Student > Master 34 18%
Researcher 24 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 29 15%
Unknown 33 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 92 48%
Neuroscience 19 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Computer Science 4 2%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 42 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2019.
All research outputs
#6,882,863
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage
#5,371
of 12,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,576
of 228,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage
#57
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 228,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.