Ventromedial prefrontal cortex damage does not impair the development and use of common ground in social interaction: Implications for cognitive theory of mind
During conversation, interactants draw on their shared communicative context and history ("common ground") to help decide what to say next, tailoring utterances based on their knowledge of what the listener knows. The use of common ground draws on an understanding of the thoughts and feelings of others to create and update a model of what is known by the other person, employing cognitive processes such as theory of mind. We tested the hypothesis that the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), a neural region involved in processing and interpreting social and emotional information, would be critical for the development and use of common ground. We studied seven patients with bilateral vmPFC damage and seven age-, sex-, and education-matched healthy comparison participants, each interacting with a familiar partner. Across 24 trials, participants verbally directed their partners how to arrange a set of 12 abstract tangram cards. Our hypothesis was not supported: the vmPFC and healthy comparison groups showed similar development and use of common ground, evident in reduction in time and words used to describe the cards, similar increases in the use of definite references (e.g., the horse), and comparable use of verbal play (playful language) in their interactions. These results argue against the idea that the vmPFC is critical for the development and use of common ground in social interaction. We propose that a cognitive and neuroanatomical bifurcation in theory of mind processes may explain this outcome. The vmPFC may be important for affective theory of mind (the ability to understand another's feelings); however, the development and use of common ground in social interaction may place higher demands on the ability to understand another's knowledge, or cognitive theory of mind, which may not require the vmPFC.
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 20 January 2012.
All research outputs
#10,535,102
of 34,167,806 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychologia
#1,528
of 4,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,490
of 300,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychologia
#13
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,167,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 300,619 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 66% of its contemporaries.
