Social Cognitive Neuroscience - Matthew Lieberman
Chapter 5Social Cognitive NeuroscienceMATTHEW D. LIEBERMANWho we are as humans has a lot to do with what happensbetween our ears. What happens between our ears has a lotto do with the social world we traverse, engage, and reactto. The former has been the province of neuroscience andthe latter the province of social psychology for nearly acentury. Recently, scientists have begun to study the socialmind by literally looking between the ears using the toolsof neuroscience. Social cognitive neuroscience uses the toolsof neuroscience to study the mental mechanisms that create, frame, regulate, and respond to our experience of thesocial world. On its worst days, social cognitive neuroscience is phrenological, cataloguing countless brain regionsinvolved in the vast array of social processes. On its bestdays, social cognitive neuroscience enhances our understanding of the social mind as well as any other method.The goals of this handbook chapter are to give anoverview of the human history of this research area(Section I), to summarize the techniques common to thisapproach (Section II), to survey the functional neuroanatomy of social cognition (Section III), and to discusshow brain research can make specific contributions to thesocial psychological enterprise (Section IV). A specialnote to social psychologists with little intrinsic interest inthe brain trying to determine whether social cognitive neuroscience is worth getting acquainted with: Go straight toSection IV.have become leaders in the field, despite few having published social cognitive neuroscience findings at that point.There were introductory talks on social cognition and cognitive neuroscience by Neil Macrae and Jonathan Cohen,respectively, along with symposia on stereotyping (WilliamCunningham, Jennifer Eberhardt, Matthew Lieberman,and Wendy Mendes), self-control (Todd Heatherton, KevinOchsner, and Cary Savage), emotion (Ralph Adolphs,Turhan Canli, Elizabeth Phelps, and Stephanie Preston),imitation and social relations (Alan Fiske, Marco Iacoboni,David Perrett, and Andrew Whiten), and theory of mind(Chris Ashwin, Josep Call, Vittorio Gallese, and KevinMcCabe). If this meeting represented the first time that allof the ingredients of social cognitive neuroscience weremixed together in a single pot, the water was already boiling when the ingredients were tossed in. To appreciatehow the pot got this way, several historical strands mustbe highlighted.In the early 1990s, John Cacioppo used the term “socialneuroscience” (Cacioppo, 1994) to characterize how thesocial world affects the nervous system. Work in this areawas mostly health relevant (Berntson, Sarter, & Cacioppo,1998; Kiecolt-Glaser & Glaser, 1989; Segerstrom, Taylor,Kemeny, & Fahey, 1998) or animal research (Carter, 1998;Insel & Winslow, 1998; Panksepp, 1998) examining theimpact of social factors on the autonomic, neuroendocrine,and immune systems (Blascovich & Mendes, this volume).In other words, early social neuroscience primarily focusedon how the social world affects the peripheral nervous systemand other bodily systems. Although neurocognitive mechanisms clearly fall under the umbrella of social neuroscience,there were few investigations linking social processes withbrain processes during the 1990s. Social cognitive neuroscience represented a new arm of social neuroscience thatprimarily focused on the neurocognitive mechanisms ofI. HISTORYThe Oxford Dictionary of Psychology (Colman, 2006)identifies a 2001 conference, held at the University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, as a starting point for social cognitive neuroscience. This was the first formal meeting onsocial cognitive neuroscience, and many of the attendeesI would like to thank Naomi Eisenberger and members of the UCLA Social Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory for various discussionsabout the contents of this chapter.143CH05.indd 14312/22/09 5:33:29 PM
144Social Cognitive Neuroscienceeveryday social cognition. Subsequently, the terms “socialcognitive neuroscience” and “social neuroscience” havelargely become synonymous because the domains and methods of study have merged.Although social cognitive neuroscience reached itsboiling point around 2001, with numerous scientists beginning to use neuroscience methods to study social cognition, there were isolated programs of research focusing onsocial cognitive neuroscience in the 1990s. Antonio andHannah Damasio’s work on the socioemotional changes inindividuals with ventromedial prefrontal cortex (PFC; seeTable 5.1 for a list of acronyms and neuroscience termsused in this chapter) (Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, &Anderson, 1994) sparked great interest in social cognitiveneuroscience, affective neuroscience (Panksepp, 1998),and neuroeconomics (Camerer, Loewenstein, & Prelec,2005). Chris and Uta Frith began an extremely fruitful lineof research on the neural bases of theory of mind in themid-1990s (Fletcher et al., 1995), a topic that is foundational within social cognitive neuroscience. Stan Klein andJohn Kihlstrom examined self-knowledge by examining apatient with temporary amnesia, providing the best earlyexample of how neuroscience could provide constraints onsocial psychological theories (Klein, Loftus, & Kihlstrom,1996). Research on the neural bases of face and biological motion processing were relatively advanced in thisperiod (McCarthy, Puce, Gore, & Allison, 1997), but notyet in a way that resonated with traditional social psychological questions. Finally, Cacioppo, Crites, and Gardner(1996) examined the neural bases of attitudes and evaluative processing using event-related potentials (ERPs)and demonstrated important dissociations between socialTable 5.1 Acronyms and Jargon in Social Cognitive NeurosciencePFCPrefrontal CortexSTSSuperior Temporal SulcusTPJTempoparietal JunctionFFAFusiform “Face” AreaACCAnterior Cingulate CortexAnteriorTowards the front of the brainPosteriorTowards the back of the brainRostralTowards the front of the brainCaudalTowards the back of the brainDorsalTowards the top of the brainVentralTowards the bottom of the brainSuperiorTowards the top of the brainInferiorTowards the bottom of the brainLateralAway from the middle of the brainMedialTowards the middle of the brainCH05.indd 144cognitive processes that were seemingly similar. Theselines of research are the precursors of social cognitive neuroscience and served as inspiration for many who wouldgo on to work in this area.Finally, a great deal of human capital was spent bringing social cognitive neuroscience into existence. Influentialscientists already doing social neuroscience, such as JohnCacioppo and Ralph Adolphs, helped promote funding forand publication of social cognitive neuroscience research.Established top-notch social psychologists including ToddHeatherton, Mahzarin Banaji, Neil Macrae, and SusanFiske began conducting social cognitive neuroscienceresearch and lent much-needed credibility to the fledgling area of research. Finally, Steve Breckler and CarolynMorf, program officers at the National Science Foundation(NSF) and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH),respectively, had the vision to fund young scientists in thisarea, before the area even existed.Stir all these ingredients together and drop in a generoushelping of motivated graduate students and, voilà: socialcognitive neuroscience. In 2000, the term “social cognitiveneuroscience” first appeared in two papers (Lieberman,2000; Ochsner & Schachter, 2000), and the first functionalmagnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study examining atraditional social psychology topic was published (Phelpset al., 2000). In 2001, the first review of social cognitive neuroscience was published (Ochsner & Lieberman,2001), although, in truth, the paucity of published researchat that time made this review as much a promissory note asa progress report.In the decade since, social cognitive neuroscience hasgone through an explosion. In 2001, a Google search for“social cognitive neuroscience” returned 6 hits. In 2009,the same search returned over 52,000 hits (see Figure 5.1).Similarly, the number of empirical social cognitive neuroscience articles published each year has steadily increasedfrom 2000 through 2008 (see Figure 5.1). There have beennumerous literature reviews of social cognitive neuroscience (Adolphs, 2001; Amodio & Frith, 2006; Bechara,2002; Blakemore, Winston, & Frith, 2004; Lieberman,2007a; Ochsner, 2004, 2007), not to mention a few critiques (Cacioppo et al., 2003; Kihlstrom, 2006; Vul, Harris,Winkielman, & Pashler, 2009; Willingham & Dunn, 2003).There have been special issues on social cognitive neuroscience in several journals, including Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology (2003), Neuropsychologia (2003),Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2004), Neuroimage(2005), Brain Research (2006), New York Academy ofSciences (2007), Group Processes and Intergroup Relations(2008), and Child Development (2009). Two new journals were founded in 2006 to focus on this area of study:Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (SCAN) and12/22/09 5:33:29 PM
Methods and Analysis145Google hits for SCN (cumulative)6000052600Number of 22003200402005Year200620072008Empirical SCN publications (per year)(Aug. 08)200Number of 0423320020002001200220032006Social Neuroscience. Several funding agencies have hadspecial funding initiatives for social cognitive neuroscience; these agencies include the National Institute ofMental Health, National Institute of Drug Addiction,National Institute of Aging, and the National Institute ofAlcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Finally, there have beena series of social cognitive neuroscience preconferencesand small meetings, and now a yearly Social and AffectiveNeuroscience (SAN) conference. In this decade, socialcognitive neuroscience has gone from virtually nonexistent to having an increasingly firm foundation and theother accoutrements of a scientific discipline.II. METHODS AND ANALYSISSocial Cognitive Neuroscience MethodsBefore jumping into a review of what has been learned withthe tools of social cognitive neuroscience it is importantCH05.indd 14520072008Figure 5.1 Growth of social cognitive neuroscience. The top panel displays the number of hits returned from a Google search of“social cognitive neuroscience” on January 1of each year from 2001–2009. The bottompanel displays the number of social cognitive neuroscience empirical articles publishedeach year from 2000–2009. Note that the 196articles indicated for 2008 were from Januarythrough August.to understand the tools themselves (this section) and thetechniques (next section) used to draw inferences aboutsocial psychological processes in the brain. The primarytools used are neuroimaging techniques (fMRI, PET, ERP)and lesion studies.Positron Emission TomographyThe earliest neuroimaging that focused on functional brainlocalization was PET. In PET, the subject is either injectedwith or inhales radioactive tracers that attach to biologically active molecules. Gamma rays from these tracers canthen be detected with PET, allowing for the identificationof where the tracers are traveling in the brain during different kinds of mental activity. Typically, PET scans havea temporal resolution of about a minute (i.e., one aggregate data point per minute) and a spatial resolution ofabout a cubic centimeter. Apart from being the first formof functional neuroimaging of the whole brain, PET’sgreatest advantage is that different kinds of molecules can12/22/09 5:33:30 PM
146Social Cognitive Neurosciencebe tagged by tracers, thereby allowing studies to examinenot just blood flow in the brain but also the distribution ofneurochemical processes.brain region and thus it is difficult to make inferences to aspecific region.Functional Magnetic Resonance ImagingTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) allows for thecreation of temporary lesions to a particular region of cortex and thereby overcomes some of the limitations of lesionstudies. TMS relies on electromagnetic pulses, which stimulate the neurons in a small area of cortex. This is typically done to excite the neurons until they stop operatingefficiently. Functionally speaking, this repetitive TMS willtake a brain region offline for several minutes, allowingresearchers to determine which temporary lesions produceperformance deficits on tasks of interest.Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a noninvasive neuroimaging technique that has replaced PET as thedominant mode of functional neuroimaging largely becauseof its better temporal resolution (1 to 2 seconds) and spatialresolution (approximately 3 mm3). Most fMRI studies useblood oxygen level–dependent (BOLD) fMRI to determinewhich brain regions are more or less active during any psychological task. BOLD fMRI works on the principle thatthe blood flowing to an active region is more oxygenatedthan blood elsewhere, and oxygenated blood has different magnetic properties than deoxygenated blood: fMRIcan detect the spatial location of these different magneticproperties and reconstruct where blood was flowing to.A limitation of fMRI is that each condition of interest musttypically be represented by several trials, which can leadto habituation and contamination effects. Also, nearlyall fMRI analyses are comparisons between experimentalconditions within a subject, typically aggregated acrosssubjects. Between-group analyses are the exception, notthe norm, and even these are between-group comparisonsof within-subject comparisons. Various social psychological findings become difficult to replicate with fMRI if subjects are exposed to all task conditions.Event-Related PotentialsEvent-related potentials (ERPs) are derived from an electroencephalograph (EEG), which measures the summatedelectrical activity from neurons firing in the outer layersof the cortex. ERPs are the reliable responses that occurtime-locked to a stimulus or response, averaged over several trials. The two primary advantages of the ERPs arethat they directly measure the brain’s electrical activity andhave millisecond temporal resolution, allowing for exquisite measurement of time course. Two weaknesses of ERPsare that only the outer cortex can be reliably assessed andthe spatial resolution of ERPs is quite poor.LesionsBy examining individuals with damage to different brainregions and observing the ensuing psychological deficits,one can determine the contributions of the damaged regionsto psychological function. The great advantage of lesionstudies over neuroimaging methods is that neuroimagingonly identifies regions active during psychological processes but cannot establish their causal relevance, whereaslesion studies yield causal inferences. The main limitationof lesion studies is that damage is rarely limited to oneCH05.indd 146Transcranial Magnetic StimulationNeuroimaging AnalysesMost published social cognitive neuroscience research hasused fMRI, and thus it is worth describing in more detailhow analyses are conducted with fMRI data (also seeLazar, 2008). This section is provided with an eye towardthe social psychologist who may want to know a bit moreabout the steps involved in inferring that “region X ismore active during task A than during task B,” withouthaving to mire through too much jargon.PreprocessingfMRI data are typically preprocessed before analysesare conducted. What this means is that various things aredone to the raw data that are obtained during scanning tomake the information suitable for analysis. One can thinkof it a bit like statistically normalizing scales before combining them or applying log transformations to make adistribution more normal. In fMRI studies, realignment,normalization, and smoothing are the standard componentsto preprocessing. It should be noted that each of these stepsintroduces some noise to the signal while improving thesignal in other ways. Assumptions go into how each ofthese steps is performed, and the practical implementationof these assumptions is never perfect.Realignment is a process that corrects the brain imagesto account for the motion of a subject’s head while in thescanner. Small movements of a few millimeters in anydirection can alter whether the signal appears to be coming from one brain structure or another. Realignment usesstructural features of the brain to determine how the brainhas moved and then “puts the brain back” in the same spaceas the brain was in during a reference scan. When successful, realignment ensures that the amygdala, for instance,shows up in the same place in the acquired brain imagesthroughout the entire data collection.Whereas realignment tries to ensure that an individual’sbrain maintains its own constant “coordinate space,” the12/22/09 5:33:30 PM
Methods and Analysisgoal of normalization is to put all of the different subjects’realigned brain scans into a single coordinate space sothat the brain structures line up across subjects. Brainscome in all shapes and sizes, and normalization essentiallymorphs different brains into a common space. Differentprograms do this in different ways, and no method doesthis perfectly.Spatial smoothing is the last key step in preprocessing.Smoothing involves averaging over adjacent “voxels” (i.e.,three-dimensional [3D] pixels) in the brain images. Thisprovides a number of benefits in terms of enhancing thedetection of certain kinds of signals, but this is done atthe expense of diminishing the likelihood of detecting otherkinds of signals. Usually this is a desirable trade-off, but itagain demonstrates that the data analyzed in fMRI studiesare far from their raw state and represent a series of decisions and transformations that render the data more analyzable, while sometimes introducing problems when the datado not conform to the assumptions behind the transformations. In many ways this differs little from the assumptionsthat are made in statistical analyses but are often untested inour behavioral studies (heteroscedasticity anyone?).Whole-Brain AnalysesThe great majority of analyses reported in fMRI researchare whole-brain analyses comparing brain activations undertwo task conditions across all of the voxels in the brain.For instance, imagine a study in which the subject spendsalternating 30-second periods looking at pictures of ingroupmembers and then outgroup members, for a total of 3 minutes. Say we want to know which brain regions are differentially activated under these two conditions. The MRIscanner may collect a full brain volume (i.e., a set of imagestaken at roughly the same time that, stacked together, coverthe entire brain) every 3 seconds, and thus there are a totalof 60 volumes takes over the 3-minute scan. Each of the60 volumes represents a time point; thus, at each voxel inthe brain there is a 60-point time series reflecting the relative activation of each voxel. The statistical tools convolvea hypothetical BOLD response (i.e., a model of how theblood oxygenation typically rises and falls over time in anactive area) with the experimental design to create a hypothetical time series of what a brain region’s activity wouldlook like if it were differentially sensitive to the two conditions of the experiment. This hypothesized time series isthen regressed against the actual time series at every voxelin the brain to see which voxels in the brain show a pattern of activation consistent with the hypothesized pattern.When several contiguous voxels from a brain region allshow the hypothesized pattern across time, it is generallyinferred that this region of the brain is more active underone condition than another. The brain images in publishedCH05.indd 147147articles that show yellow and orange “blobs” typicallyrepresent the regions that cross some threshold (e.g., 10contiguous voxels all with regression values of p .001)for consistency with the experimental regressor.These analyses yield the brain regions for a single subj
social cognitive neuroscience, and many of the attendees have become leaders in the field, despite few having pub-lished social cognitive neuroscience findings at that point. There were introductory talks on social cognition and cog-nitive neuroscience by Neil Macrae and Jonathan Cohen, respectively, along with symposia on stereotyping (William
theory of mind, empathy, emotion regulation, self-control, mirror neurons, social cognition, social neuroscience, automaticity, neuroeconomics Abstract Social cognitive neuroscience examines social phenomena and pro-cesses using cognitive neuroscience research tools such as neu-roimaging and neuropsychology. This review examines four broad
Cognitive neuroscience is the branch of neuroscience that seeks to understand the mechanisms of the nervous system that are directly related to cognitive (mental) processes. These mechanisms are thought to reside in the brain. Because cognition refers to functions of the mind, we must begin our study of cognitive neuroscience by first examining .
Cognitive Neuroscience Philipp Koehn 11 February 2020 Philipp Koehn Artificial Intelligence: Cognitive Neuroscience 11 February 2020. Cognitive Neuroscience 1 Looking ”under the hood” What is the hardware that the mind runs on? Much progress in recent years
Social cognitive neuroscience: where are we heading? Sarah-Jayne Blakemore1, Joel Winston2 and Uta Frith1 1Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AR, UK 2Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, 12 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK Humans crave the company of others and suffer pro-foundly if temporarily isolated from society.
Relevant topical seminars offered by Cognitive Neuroscience faculty are also often taught under common/shared course codes for other areas in the department, e.g. Attention & Cognitive Control (7695-Leber), Social Cognitive Neuroscience (7897-Wagner), Human Neuropsychology (8891-Prakash), Neural Dynamics of Decision Making (8890-Krajbich).
An Old Parable - Matthew 22:1- 14 Caesar’s Silver - Matthew 22:15- 22 The Core - Matthew 22:23-46 Seven Woes - Matthew 23 The Mount of Olives – Prophecy - Matthew 24:1-44 Three Parables of the Resurrection - Matthew 24:45- 25:30 Sweet and Terrifying - Matthew 25:31- 46 Devotion and Be
Katie Marie Barnes Ronceverte, WV CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE Robert Gates Bass III Midlothian, VA EXPERIMENTAL NEUROSCIENCE Meet the Seniors Ben Batman Monroe, VA CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE Kourtney A Baumfalk Richmond, VA COGNITIVE AND BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE Jennifer Leigh Beauchamp West Chester, PA CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE
Por Alfredo López Austin * I. Necesidad conceptual Soy historiador; mi objeto de estudio es el pensamiento de las sociedades de tradición mesoamericana, con énfasis en las antiguas, anteriores al dominio colonial europeo. Como historiador no encuentro que mi trabajo se diferencie del propio del antropólogo; más bien, ignoro si existe alguna conveniencia en establecer un límite entre .
