↓ Skip to main content

Executive Mechanisms for Thinking about Negative Situations in Both Cooperative and Non-Cooperative Contexts

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Executive Mechanisms for Thinking about Negative Situations in Both Cooperative and Non-Cooperative Contexts
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00275
Pubmed ID
Authors

Azalea Reyes-Aguilar, Juan Fernandez-Ruiz, Erick H. Pasaye, Fernando A. Barrios

Abstract

Mentalizing is a fundamental aspect of social cognition that includes understanding the mental states of others. This process involves the participation of a well-defined set of brain regions. However, it is still unknown how different contextual situations, such as previous cooperative or non-cooperative interactions, can modulate the brain activity related to the inference of others' mental states. Hence, this study investigated whether a previous social interaction can modulate the neural mechanisms involved in a way to response to inferred mental states of cooperators and non-cooperators in positive vs. negative emotional situations. Participants first engaged in a Dictator game with cooperator and non-cooperator confederates. Then, in an fMRI setup, participants had to infer the mental states of the cooperator and non-cooperator confederates under positive and negative situations. Results showed that in addition to the mentalizing network, inferring mental states recruited occipital and cerebellar areas in the cooperative context. A differential pattern of activity that depended on the emotional valence of the situation was also detected, i.e., negative situations recruited prefrontal cortex (PFC) in both contexts, while temporal regions were recruited only for the non-cooperative context. Overall, these results suggest that our previous experiences with others modulate the brain activity related to the inferences we make about their mental states in specific emotional situations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Master 3 13%
Other 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 30%
Neuroscience 3 13%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,547,867
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,086
of 7,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,953
of 313,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#171
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 313,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.