Goal-directed actions activate the face-sensitive posterior superior temporal sulcus and fusiform gyrus in the absence of human-like perceptual cues

Cerebral Cortex

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1098-1106

  Shultz, Sarah ^a   McCarthy, Gregory ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

animacy; fMRI

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN REGION; FEMALE; FUSIFORM GYRUS; GOAL ATTAINMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SUPERIOR TEMPORAL SULCUS; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL STIMULATION;

BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; CUES; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MOTION PERCEPTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84860159771     PISSN: 10473211     EISSN: 14602199     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhr180     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Baron-Cohen S. 1995. Mindblindness: an essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
2. Biro S, Csibra G, Gergely G. 2007. The role of behavioral cues in understanding goal-directed actions in infancy. Prog Brain Res. 164: 303-323.
3. Blakemore SJ, Boyer P, Pachot-Clouard M, Meltzoff A, Segebarth C, Decety J. 2003. The detection of contingency and animacy from simple animations in the human brain. Cereb Cortex. 13: 837-844. (Pubitemid 36917963)
4. Bonda E, Petrides M, Ostry D, Evans A. 1996. Specific involvement of human parietal systems and the amygdala in the perception of biological motion. J Neurosci. 16: 3737-3744. (Pubitemid 26149509)
5. Carey S, Spelke ES. 1994. Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In: Hirschfeld LA, Gelman SA, Hirschfeld LA, Gelman SA, editors. Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 169-200.
6. Carey S, Spelke ES. 1996. Science and core knowledge. Philos Sci. 63: 515-533. (Pubitemid 126431267)
7. Castelli F, Happe F, Frith U, Frith C. 2000. Movement and mind: a functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns. Neuroimage. 12: 314-325.
8. Csibra G. 2008. Goal attribution to inanimate agents by 6. 5-month-old infants. Cognition. 107: 705-717. (Pubitemid 351451954)
9. Csibra G, Biro S, Koos O, Gergely G. 2003. One-year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productively. Cognitive Sci. 27: 111-113.
10. Csibra G, Gergely G, Biro S, Koos O, Brockbank M. 1999. Goal attribution without agency cues: the perception of 'pure reason' in infancy. Cognition. 72: 237-267. (Pubitemid 29462583)
11. Downing PE, Jiang Y, Shuman M, Kanwisher N. 2001. A cortical area selective for visual processing of the human body. Science. 293: 2405-2407.
12. Fogassi L, Ferrari PF, Gesierich B, Rozzi S, Chersi F, Rizzolatti G. 2005. Parietal lobe: from action organization to intention understanding. Science. 29: 662-667. (Pubitemid 40594381)
13. Gao T, McCarthy G, Scholl BJ. 2010. The wolfpack effect: perception of animacy irresistibly influences interactive behavior. Psychol Sci. 21: 1845-1853.
14. Gergely G, Csibra G. 2003. Teleological reasoning in infancy: the nave theory of rational action. Trends Cogn Sci. 7: 287-292. (Pubitemid 36818921)
15. Gergely G, Nadasdy Z, Csibra G, Biro S. 1995. Taking an intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition. 56: 165-193.
16. Gibson EJ, Owsley CJ, Johnson J. 1978. Perception of invariants by 5-month-old infants: differentiation of two types of motion. Dev Psychol. 14: 407-416.
17. Grossman ED, Blake R. 2002. Brain areas active during visual perception of biological motion. Neuron. 35: 1167-1175. (Pubitemid 35279543)
18. Guajardo J, Woodward A. 2004. Is agency skin deep? Surface attributes influence infants' sensitivity to goal-directed actions. Infancy. 6: 361-384.
19. Hamlin JK, Newman G, Wynn K. 2009. Eight-month-old infants infer unfulfilled goals, despite ambiguous physical evidence. Infancy. 14: 579-590.
20. Haxby JV, Horwitz B, Ungerleider LG, Maisog JM, Pietrini P, Grady CL. 1994. The functional organization of human extrastriate cortex: a PET-rCBF study of selective attention to faces and locations. J Neurosci. 14: 6336-6353. (Pubitemid 24333057)
21. Kanwisher N, McDermott J, Chun M. 1997. The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J Neurosci. 11: 4302-4311. (Pubitemid 27220621)
22. Leslie AM. 1994. ToMM, ToBy, and agency: core architecture and domain specificity. In: Hirschfeld LA, Gelman SA, editors. Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 119-148.
23. Leslie AM. 1995. A theory of agency. In: Sperber D, Premack D, Premack AJ, editors. Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 121-141.
24. McCarthy G, Gao T, Scholl B. 2009. Processing animacy in the posterior superior temporal sulcus. J Vision. 9: 775.
25. Meltzoff AM. 1995. Understanding the intentions of others: reenactments of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Dev Psychol. 31: 838-850.
26. Pelphrey KA, Mitchell TV, McKeown MJ, Goldstein J, Allison T, McCarthy G. 2003. Brain activity evoked by the perception of human walking: controlling for meaningful coherent motion. J Neurosci. 23: 6819-6825. (Pubitemid 36951210)
27. Premack D. 1990. The infant's theory of self-propelled objects. Cognition. 36: 1-16.
28. Premack D. 1991. The infant's theory of self-propelled objects. In: Frye D, Moore C, editors. Children's theories of mind: mental states and social understanding. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 39-48.
29. Puce A, Allison T, Asgari M, Gore JC, McCarthy G. 1996. Differential sensitivity of human visual cortex to faces, letterstrings, and textures: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosci. 16: 5205-5215. (Pubitemid 26269679)
30. Puce A, Allison T, Gore JC, McCarthy G. 1995. Face-sensitive regions in human extrastriate cortex studied by functional MRI. J Neurophysiol. 74: 1192-1199.
31. Schultz RT, Grelotti DJ, Klin A, Kleinman J, Van der Gaag C, Marois R, Skudlarksi P. 2003. The role of the fusiform face area in social cognition: implications for the pathobiology of autism. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 358: 415-427. (Pubitemid 36257613)
32. Shultz S, Lee SM, Pelphrey K, McCarthy G. 2010. The posterior superior temporal sulcus is sensitive to the outcome of human and non-human goal-directed actions. Soc Cogn Affect Neur. Advance Access published November 22, 2010 doi: 10. 1093/scan/nsq087.
33. Simion F, Regolin L, Bulf H. 2008. A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105: 809-813. (Pubitemid 351171791)
34. Southgate V, Johnson MH, Csibra G. 2008. Infants attribute goals even to biomechanically impossible actions. Cognition. 107: 1059-1069.
35. Spelke ES, Phillips AT, Woodward AL. 1995. Infants' knowledge of object motion and human action. In: Sperber D, Premack D, Premack AJ, editors. Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 44-77.
36. Turk-Browne NB, Norman-Haignere SV, McCarthy G. 2010. Facespecific resting functional connectivity between the fusiform gyrus and posterior superior temporal sulcus. Front Hum Neurosci. 4: 1-14.
37. Vallortigara G, Regolin L, Marconato F. 2005. Visually inexperienced chicks exhibit spontaneous preference for biological motion patterns. PLoS Biol. 3: e208.
38. Wagner L, Carey S. 2005. 12-month-old infants represent probable endings of motion events. Infancy. 7: 73-83. (Pubitemid 40528903)
39. Woodward AL. 1998. Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition. 69: 1-34. (Pubitemid 128446652)