Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T06:08:15.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A second-person neuroscience in interaction1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2013

Leonhard Schilbach ,
Bert Timmermans ,
Vasudevi Reddy ,
Alan Costall ,
Gary Bente ,
Tobias Schlicht  and
Kai Vogeley
Leonhard Schilbach
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital of Cologne, 50924 Cologne, Germany. [email protected]
Bert Timmermans
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, Scotland, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Vasudevi Reddy
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO1 2DY, United Kingdom. [email protected]@port.ac.uk
Alan Costall
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO1 2DY, United Kingdom. [email protected]@port.ac.uk
Gary Bente
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Social Psychology II – Communication and Media Psychology, University of Cologne, 50931 Cologne, Germany. [email protected]
Tobias Schlicht
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44780 Bochum, Germany. [email protected]
Kai Vogeley
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital of Cologne, 50924 Cologne, Germany. [email protected] Institute of Neuroscience & Medicine, Cognitive Neuroscience (INM–3), Research Center Juelich, 52428 Juelich, Germany. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this response we address additions to as well as criticisms and possible misinterpretations of our proposal for a second-person neuroscience. We map out the most crucial aspects of our approach by (1) acknowledging that second-person engaged interaction is not the only way to understand others, although we claim that it is ontogenetically prior; (2) claiming that spectatorial paradigms need to be complemented in order to enable a full understanding of social interactions; and (3) restating that our theoretical proposal not only questions the mechanism by which a cognitive process comes into being, but asks whether it is at all meaningful to speak of a mechanism and a cognitive process when it is confined to intra-agent space. We address theoretical criticisms of our approach by pointing out that while a second-person social understanding may not be the only mechanism, alternative approaches cannot hold their ground without resorting to second-person concepts, if not in the expression, certainly in the development of social understanding. In this context, we also address issues of agency and intentionality, theoretical alternatives, and clinical implications of our approach.

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 441 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1.

Authors Leonhard Schilbach and Bert Timmermans have contributed equally to this Response article.

References

Adams, F. & Aizawa, K. (2008) The bounds of cognition. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A. & Earp, B. D. (2009) The will is caused, not free. Dialogue – Newsletter of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology 24(1):13–15.Google Scholar
Barisic, I, Timmermans, B, Pfeiffer, UJ, Bente, G, Vogeley, K & Schilbach, L (2013). In it together: Using dual eyetracking to investigate real-time social interactions. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 27 through May 2, 2013, Paris, France. Association for Computing Machinery. Available at: http://gaze-interaction.net/wp-system/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BTP+13.pdf Google Scholar
Becchio, C., Cavallo, A., Begliomini, C., Sartori, L., Feltrin, G. & Castiello, U. (2012) Social grasping: From mirroring to mentalizing. Neuroimage 61(1):240–48.Google Scholar
Bente, G., Eschenburg, F. & Krämer, N. C. (2007b) Virtual gaze: A pilot study on the effects of computer simulated gaze in avatar-based conversations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4563:185–94. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73335-5_21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bente, G., Rüggenberg, S., Krämer, N. C. & Eschenburg, F. (2008b) Avatar-mediated networking: Increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research 34(2):287–318. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00322.x.Google Scholar
Brentano, F. (1874/1973) Psychology from an empirical standpoint, trans. Rancurello, A. C., Terrell, D. B. & McAlister, L. L.. Routledge. (Original work published in 1874).Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1964) The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist 19(1):1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buccino, G., Lui, F., Canessa, N., Patteri, I., Lagravinese, G., Benuzzi, F., Porro, C. A. & Rizzolatti, G. (2004) Neural circuits involved in the recognition of actions performed by non-conspecifics: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16:114–26.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, B. & Baron-Cohen, S. (2011) Variation in the human Cannabinoid Receptor (CNR1) gene modulates gaze duration for happy faces. Molecular Autism 2(1):10. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2040-2392-2-10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chemero, A. (2009) Radical embodied cognitive science. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2001) Mindware. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2013) Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3):181–253.Google Scholar
Clark, A. & Chalmers, D. J. (1998) The extended mind. Analysis 58(1):7–19.Google Scholar
Conty, L., Dezecache, G., Hugueville, L. & Grèzes, J. (2012) Early binding of gaze, gesture, and emotion: Neural time course and correlates. The Journal of Neuroscience 32(13):4531–39. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5636-11.2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Custers, R. & Aarts, H. (2010) The unconscious will: How the pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious awareness. Science 329:47–50.Google Scholar
De Bruin, L. C. & Gallagher, S. (2012) Embodied simulation: An unproductive explanation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16:98–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E. & Gallagher, S. (2010) Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(10):441–47. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.009.Google Scholar
Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C.-L. & Cleeremans, A. (2012) Behavioral priming: It's all in the mind, but whose mind? PLoS ONE 7(1):e29081. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029081.Google Scholar
Engemann, D. A., Bzdok, D., Eickhoff, S. B., Vogeley, K. & Schilbach, L. (2012) Games people play – toward an enactive view of cooperation in social neuroscience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6:148. Epub June 1, 2012.Google Scholar
Friston, K. (2010) The free energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11:127–38.Google Scholar
Frith, C. D. (2007) Making up the mind. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Frith, C. D. (2012b) The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B: Biological Sciences 367(1599):2213–-23.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2001) The practice of mind: Theory, simulation, or interaction? Journal of Consciousness Studies 8(5–7):83–108. Available at: http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~gallaghr/practice01.htm.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2007) Simulation trouble. Social Neuroscience 2(3–4):353–65. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470910601183549.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2008) Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition 17(2):535–43. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.03.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallese, V. & Sinigaglia, C. (2011) What is so special about embodied simulation? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15(11):512–19 Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.09.003.Google Scholar
Gazzola, V., van, der Worp, H., Mulder, T., Wicker, B., Rizzolatti, G. & Keysers, C. (2007) Aplasics born without hands mirror the goal of hand actions with their feet. Current Biology 17:1235–40.Google Scholar
Gintis, H. (2009) The bounds of reason: Game theory and the unification of the behavioral sciences. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (2006) Simulating minds. The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haggard, P. (2008) Human volition: Towards a neuroscience of will. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9:934–46.Google Scholar
Hein, G., Silani, G., Preuschoff, K., Batson, C. D. & Singer, T. (2010) Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members' suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron 68:149–60.Google Scholar
Hohwy, J. (2012) Attention and conscious perception in the hypothesis testing brain. Frontiers in Psychology 3:96. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00096.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. D. (2008) Folk-psychological narratives. The sociocultural basis of understanding reasons. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. D. & Myin, E. (2013) Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kitayama, S., Snibbe, A. C., Markus, H. R. & Suzuki, T. (2004) Is there any “free” choice? Self and dissonance in two cultures. Psychological Science 15:527–33.Google Scholar
Kuzmanovic, B., Georgescu, A., Eickhoff, S., Shah, N., Bente, G., Fink, G. R. & Vogeley, K. (2009) Duration matters. Dissociating neural correlates of detection and evaluation of social gaze. NeuroImage 46:1154–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Libet, B. (1985) Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8:529–66.Google Scholar
Marsh, L. E. & Hamilton, A. F. (2011) Dissociation of mirroring and mentalising systems in autism. NeuroImage 56(3):1511–19.Google Scholar
McGeer, V. (2001) Psycho-practice, psycho-theory and the contrastive case of autism. How practices of mind become second-nature. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8(5–7):109–32.Google Scholar
Menary, R. (2010) The extended mind. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1958) Phenomenology of perception. Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Nation, K. & Penny, S. (2008) Sensitivity to eye gaze in autism: Is it normal? Is it automatic? Is it social? Development and Psychopathology 20(1):79–97.Google Scholar
Newen, A. & Schlicht, T. (2009) Understanding other minds: A criticism of Goldman's Simulation Theory and an outline of the Person Model Theory. Grazer Philosophische Studien 79(1):209–42.Google Scholar
Niedenthal, P. M., Mermillod, M., Maringer, M. & Hess, U. (2010) The Simulation of Smiles (SIMS) model: Embodied simulation and the meaning of facial expression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(6):417–33; discussion 433–80. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000865.Google Scholar
Olsson, A., Ebert, J. P., Banaji, M. R. & Phelps, E. A. (2005) The role of social groups in the persistence of learned fear. Science 309:785–87.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, U. J., Timmermans, B., Bente, G., Vogeley, K. & Schilbach, L. (2011) The non-verbal Turing test: Differentiating mind from machine in gaze-based social interaction. PLoS ONE 6(11):e27591. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redcay, E., Dodell-Feder, D., Mavros, P. L., Kleiner, M., Pearrow, M. J., Triantafyllou, C., Gabrieli, J. D. & Saxe, R. (2012) Atypical brain activation patterns during a face-to-face joint attention game in adults with autism spectrum disorder. Human Brain Mapping. doi:10.1002/hbm.22086. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
Santos, N. S., Kuzmanovic, B., David, N., Rotarska-Jagiela, A., Eickhoff, S. B., Shah, J. N., Fink, G. R., Bente, G. & Vogeley, K. (2010) Animated brain: A functional neuroimaging study on the parametric induction of animacy experience. NeuroImage 53(1):291–302. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.080.Google Scholar
Schilbach, L. (2010) A second-person approach to other minds. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11(6):449.Google Scholar
Schilbach, L., Wilms, M., Eickhoff, S. B., Romanzetti, S., Tepest, R., Bente, G., Shah, N. J., Fink, G. R. & Vogeley, K. (2010b) Minds made for sharing: Initiating joint attention recruits reward-related neurocircuitry. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22(12):2702–15. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21401.Google Scholar
Schlicht, T. (forthcoming) Mittendrin statt nur dabei. In: Grenzen der Empathie, ed. Breyer, T.. Alber.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1990) Collective intentions and actions. In: Intentions in communication, ed. Cohen, P., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M. E., pp. 401–15. Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sinigaglia, C. (2008) Enactive understanding and motor intentionality. In: Enacting intersubjectivity: A cognitive and social perspective to the study of interactions, ed. Morganti, F., Carassa, A. & Riva, G., pp. 17–32. IOS Press.Google Scholar
Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H. & Haynes, J. (2008) Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience 11(5):543–45.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. (2007) Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Varela, F., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. (1991) The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vogeley, K. & Bartels, A. (2011) The explanatory value of representations in cognitive neuroscience. In: Knowledge and representation, ed. Newen, A., Bartels, A. & Jung, E. M., pp. 163–84. Stanford & Mentis Verlag Google Scholar
Vogeley, K. & Newen, A. (2009) Consciousness of oneself and others in relation to mental disorders. In: The neuropsychology of mental illness, ed. Wood, S., Allen, N. & Pantelis, C. (Hrsg.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Ramsey, R. & Hamilton, A. F. de C. (2011) The control of mimicry by eye contact is mediated by medial prefrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience 31(33):12001–10. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0845-11.2011.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M. (2005) Reconstructing the cognitive world: The next step. MIT Press.Google Scholar