Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:21:20.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second person neuroscience needs theories as well as methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2013

Antonia F. de C. Hamilton
Antonia F. de C. Hamilton*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Advancing second-person neuroscience will need strong theories, as well as the new methods detailed by Schilbach et al. I assess computational theories, enactive theories, and cognitive/information processing theories, and argue that information processing approaches have an important role to play in second-person neuroscience. They provide the closest link to brain imaging and can give important insights into social behaviour.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 425 - 426
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.)

References

Behrens, T. E. J., Hunt, L. T. & Rushworth, M. F. (2009) The computation of social behavior. Science 324(5931):1160–64. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1169694.Google Scholar
Cisek, P. & Kalaska, J. F. (2010) Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. Annual Review of Neuroscience 33:269–98. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135409.Google Scholar
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
Dijksterhuis, A. & Bargh, J. A. (2001) The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 33:1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. J., Harrison, L. & Penny, W. (2003) Dynamic causal modelling. NeuroImage 19(4):1273–302.Google Scholar
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
Hampton, A. N., Bossaerts, P. & O'Doherty, J. P. (2008) Neural correlates of mentalizing-related computations during strategic interactions in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105(18):6741–46. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711099105.Google Scholar
Heyes, C. (2011) Automatic imitation. Psychological Bulletin 137(3):463–83. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022288.Google Scholar
Port, R. F. & van Gelder, T. (1995) Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prinz, W. (2005) An ideomotor approach to imitation. In: Perspectives on imitation: Mechanisms of imitation and imitation in animals, ed. Hurley, S., pp. 141–56. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thelen, E. & Smith, L. B. (1996) A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. (2007) Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, D., Kayali, M. A., King-Casas, B., Anen, C., Camerer, C. F., Quartz, S. R. & Montague, P. R. (2006) Agent-specific responses in the cingulate cortex during economic exchanges. Science 312(5776):1047–50. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1125596.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. & Hamilton, A. F. de C. (2012) Social top-down response modulation (STORM): A model of the control of mimicry in social interaction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6:1–10. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00153.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Newport, R. & Hamilton, A. F. de C. (2010) Eye contact enhances mimicry of intransitive hand movements. Biological Letters 7(1):7–10. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0279.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
Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K. & Kawato, M. (2003) A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 358(1431):593–602. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1238.Google Scholar