Neural representations of social status hierarchy in human inferior parietal cortex

125

135

Detecting dominance relationships, within and across species, provides a clear fitness advantage because this ability helps individuals assess their potential risk of injury before engaging in a competition. Previous research has demonstrated that 10- to 13-mo-old infants can represent the dominance relationship between two agents in terms of their physical size (larger agent = more dominant), whereas younger infants fail to do so. It is unclear whether infants younger than 10 mo fail to represent dominance relationships in general, or whether they lack sensitivity to physical size as a cue to dominance. Two studies explored whether infants, like many species across the animal kingdom, use numerical group size to assess dominance relationships and whether this capacity emerges before their sensitivity to physical size. A third study ruled out an alternative explanation for our findings. Across these studies, we report that infants 6–12 mo of age use numerical group size to infer dominance relationships. Specifically, preverbal infants expect an agent from a numerically larger group to win in a right-of-way competition against an agent from a numerically smaller group. In addition, this is, to our knowledge, the first study to demonstrate that infants 6–9 mo of age are capable of understanding social dominance relations. These results demonstrate that infants’ understanding of social dominance relations may be based on evolutionarily relevant cues and reveal infants’ early sensitivity to an important adaptive function of social groups.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infants use relative numerical group size to infer social dominance

Pun

Birch

Baron

2016

125

135

“…Likewise, the size of our social networks relates to brain structure (93,94). Given that the social environment is known to affect a wide array of biological responses (5,17,19,95), a next important goal for neuroscience will be to further understand how experience at multiple levels (e.g., culture, family, social networks, SES) affects neural structure and function (46,(96)(97)(98)(99)(100)(101). In parallel, it is certain that social and environmental variables moderate the link between brain and behavior (12), but further research is needed to examine such interactions.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

What is a representative brain? Neuroscience meets population science

Falk

Hyde

Mitchell³

et al. 2013

214

191

The last decades of neuroscience research have produced immense progress in the methods available to understand brain structure and function. Social, cognitive, clinical, affective, economic, communication, and developmental neurosciences have begun to map the relationships between neuro-psychological processes and behavioral outcomes, yielding a new understanding of human behavior and promising interventions. However, a limitation of this fast moving research is that most findings are based on small samples of convenience. Furthermore, our understanding of individual differences may be distorted by unrepresentative samples, undermining findings regarding brain-behavior mechanisms. These limitations are issues that social demographers, epidemiologists, and other population scientists have tackled, with solutions that can be applied to neuroscience. By contrast, nearly all social science disciplines, including social demography, sociology, political science, economics, communication science, and psychology, make assumptions about processes that involve the brain, but have incorporated neural measures to differing, and often limited, degrees; many still treat the brain as a black box. In this article, we describe and promote a perspective-population neuroscience-that leverages interdisciplinary expertise to (i) emphasize the importance of sampling to more clearly define the relevant populations and sampling strategies needed when using neuroscience methods to address such questions; and (ii) deepen understanding of mechanisms within population science by providing insight regarding underlying neural mechanisms. Doing so will increase our confidence in the generalizability of the findings. We provide examples to illustrate the population neuroscience approach for specific types of research questions and discuss the potential for theoretical and applied advances from this approach across areas.neuroimaging | life course | statistics | survey methodology | physics Why Population Neuroscience? How do biology, social situations, and the broader environmental context interact to guide behavior, health, and development? This question is fundamental to most, if not all, social and behavioral sciences. We argue that to effectively address the many topics that stem from this larger question across disciplines, it is necessary to (i) bring a "population perspective" to neuroscience and (ii) leverage neuroscience tools within population sciences, which are subdisciplines of many fields, areas, and departments focused on documenting and understanding the dynamics of human populations, including outcomes such as health, well-being, behavior, etc.

“…Social rank is conceptually represented by 15-mo-old human infants (6), used by 2-y-olds (7), and activates discrete brain regions in human adults (8,9). The importance of rank is underscored by the fact that many nonprimate species can predict social rank through observation of others using transitive inference, including birds (10) and the cichlid fish that is our model system (11).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social information changes the brain

Fernald

Maruska

2012

122

Social animals live in complex physical and social environments requiring them to attend and rapidly respond to social and environmental information by changing their behavior. A key social influence is rank or status, a ubiquitous element in animal societies. Rank typically regulates access to reproduction and other resources, among other consequences for individuals. Because reproduction is arguably the most important event in any animals' life, understanding how reproduction is regulated by social status and related physiological factors can instruct our understanding of evolutionary change. This article reviews evidence from a model social system in which reproduction is tightly controlled by social status. Surprisingly, changes in social status have rapid and profound effects over very short time scales and radically alter overt behavior, as well as physiological, cellular, and molecular factors that regulate reproductive capacity.brain plasticity | cichlid fish | immediate early gene | social rank