Attentional processes, not implicit mentalizing, mediate performance in a perspective-taking task: Evidence from stimulation of the temporoparietal junction

Abstract

Mentalizing is a fundamental process underpinning human social interaction. Claims of the existence of 'implicit mentalizing' represent a fundamental shift in our understanding of this important skill, suggesting that preverbal infants and even animals may be capable of mentalizing. One of the most influential tasks supporting such claims in adults is the dot perspective-taking task, but demonstrations of similar performance on this task for mentalistic and non-mentalistic stimuli have led to the suggestion that this task in fact measures domain-general processes, rather than implicit mentalizing. A mentalizing explanation was supported by fMRI data claiming to show greater activation of brain areas involved in mentalizing, including right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ), when participants made self-perspective judgements in a mentalistic, but not in a non-mentalistic condition, an interpretation subsequently challenged. Here we provide the first causal test of the mentalizing claim using disruptive transcranial magnetic stimulation of rTPJ during self-perspective judgements. We found no evidence for a distinction between mentalistic and non-mentalistic stimuli: stimulation of rTPJ impaired performance on all self-perspective trials, regardless of the mentalistic/non-mentalistic nature of the stimulus. Our data support a domain-general attentional interpretation of performance on the dot perspective-taking task, a role which is subserved by the rTPJ.

Does interference between self and other perspectives in theory of mind tasks reflect a common underlying process? Evidence from individual differences in theory of mind and inhibitory control

“…Specifically in relation to the L1 VPT and director tasks used in the current study, recent work that has tested the domain specificity of these effects and found evidence that similar effects are obtained when the avatar is replaced with an arrow and when the director is replaced with a camera the view of which conditionalizes their responses in the same way as the director (e.g., Santiesteban et al, 2014;Santiesteban et al, 2017;Santiesteban et al, 2015). These results fail to find support for the domain specificity of the effects in the L1 VPT and director tasks, but as illustrated above, there is no necessary link between ToM and domain specificity in accounts of ToM, and plenty of reasons for thinking that domain-general executive functions play central roles in enabling ToM.…”

“…A further question is whether these tasks actually measure ToM at all, since recent evidence suggests that the processing they entail may not be domain specific to ToM (e.g., Santiesteban et al, 2014;Santiesteban, Kaur, Bird, & Catmur, 2017;Santiesteban, Shah, White, Bird, & Heyes, 2015). There has been longstanding discussion about the extent to which ToM relies upon distinctive cognitive processes.…”

On the relation between theory of mind and executive functioning: A developmental cognitive neuroscience perspective

“…The seminal role of attention in both ToM and EF is plausible on the basis of the abovementioned evidence that the dorsal attention network develops faster than the networks typically recognized to underlie ToM and EF, with connectivity changes between certain networks over the first 2 years of life (Gao et al, 2015). Interestingly, Santiesteban, Kaur, Bird, and Catmur (2017) recently used disruptive TMS over the right TPJ to show that domain-general attentional processes may mediate the ability to take another's visual perspective during selfperspective judgments. Future use of TMS during ToM and EF tasks that vary in their attentional demands may illuminate the degree to which such attentional processes are important in facilitating ToM and EF performance.…”

How attention gates social interactions

“…Here, researchers have typically examined whether attentional orienting in response to social gaze and comparison nonsocial cues was associated with differential activations within the attentional control networks . These investigations have also frequently revealed similar neural activity for gaze and arrow cues, with disruptive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the right temporoparietal junction (TPJ) found to modulate the processing of directional information regardless of the social (i.e., a human avatar) or nonsocial (i.e., an arrow) nature of the stimulus . Some work did show cue‐specific modulation—for example results indicating that social, compared with nonsocial, cues elicit stronger and sometimes even unique effects in neural responses—are more effective in guiding infant object processing and learning, and drive behavioral effects that appear more resistant to volitional control .…”