Triggering the intentional stance.

While humans possess a ready capacity to view a target (biological or otherwise) as an intentional agent (i.e. the 'intentional stance'), the conditions necessary for spontaneously eliciting these mentalizing processes are less well understood. Although research examining people's tendency to construe the motion of geometric shapes as intentional has done much to illuminate this issue, due to methodological limitations (a reliance on subjective self-report) this work has not fully addressed the potentially automatic and obligatory nature of mentalizing. Acknowledging this problem, recent research using prelinguistic infants, neuroimaging technology and methods that avoid explicit self-report all provide unique paths to circumvent this shortcoming. While work of this kind has generally corroborated the results of previous investigations, it has also raised a number of new issues. One such issue is whether spontaneous mentalizing processes for abstract non-biological stimuli are instantiated in the same neural architecture as those for realistic representations of intentional biological agents. This question is considered in the current chapter.

[1]  Michael B. Miller,et al.  Neural Correlates of Detecting Pretense: Automatic Engagement of the Intentional Stance under Covert Conditions , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  C. Frith,et al.  Autism, Asperger syndrome and brain mechanisms for the attribution of mental states to animated shapes. , 2002, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[3]  Mitsuo Kawato,et al.  Activation of the Human Superior Temporal Gyrus during Observation of Goal Attribution by Intentional Objects , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  J. Haxby,et al.  fMRI Responses to Video and Point-Light Displays of Moving Humans and Manipulable Objects , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[5]  Jordan B. Peterson,et al.  Bookworms versus nerds: Exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds , 2006 .

[6]  D. Perrett,et al.  A region of right posterior superior temporal sulcus responds to observed intentional actions , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[7]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Can a Self-Propelled Box Have a Goal? , 2005, Psychological science.

[8]  Sarah-Jayne Blakemore,et al.  The role of motor contagion in the prediction of action , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  A. Meltzoff,et al.  The detection of contingency and animacy from simple animations in the human brain. , 2003, Cerebral cortex.

[10]  C. Frith,et al.  Movement and Mind: A Functional Imaging Study of Perception and Interpretation of Complex Intentional Movement Patterns , 2000, NeuroImage.

[11]  U. Frith,et al.  Do triangles play tricks? Attribution of mental states to animated shapes in normal and abnormal development , 2000 .

[12]  T. Charman,et al.  The Development of Autism : Perspectives From Theory and Research , 2001 .

[13]  N. A. Borghese,et al.  Different Brain Correlates for Watching Real and Virtual Hand Actions , 2001, NeuroImage.

[14]  G. Csibra,et al.  Teleological reasoning in infancy: the naı̈ve theory of rational action , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  Peter K. Smith,et al.  Theories of Theories of Mind , 1996 .

[16]  T. Allison,et al.  Social perception from visual cues: role of the STS region , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  Jane F. Banfield,et al.  Thinking about actions: the neural substrates of person knowledge. , 2004, Cerebral cortex.

[18]  Patrice D. Tremoulet,et al.  Perceptual causality and animacy , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  Helen Tager-Flusberg,et al.  A reexamination of the theory of mind hypothesis of autism. , 2001 .

[20]  T. Heatherton,et al.  Detecting agency from the biological motion of veridical vs animated agents. , 2007, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[21]  Z. Nadasdy,et al.  Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age , 1995, Cognition.

[22]  C. Frith,et al.  Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’ , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  F. Heider,et al.  An experimental study of apparent behavior , 1944 .

[24]  T. Allison,et al.  Brain Activity Evoked by the Perception of Human Walking: Controlling for Meaningful Coherent Motion , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[25]  D. Dennett The Intentional Stance. , 1987 .

[26]  S. Preston,et al.  Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[27]  G. McCarthy,et al.  When Strangers Pass , 2004, Psychological science.

[28]  R. Mar The neuropsychology of narrative: story comprehension, story production and their interrelation , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  J. J. Guajardo,et al.  Is agency skin-deep? Surface attributes influence infants' sensitivity to goal-directed action , 2004 .

[30]  Susan C. Johnson The recognition of mentalistic agents in infancy , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[31]  Jodie A. Baird,et al.  Discerning intentions in dynamic human action , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  D. Perrett,et al.  Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.11 November 2004 Demystifying social cognition: a Hebbian perspective , 2022 .

[33]  Kevin A. Pelphrey,et al.  Grasping the Intentions of Others: The Perceived Intentionality of an Action Influences Activity in the Superior Temporal Sulcus during Social Perception , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[34]  A. Michotte The perception of causality , 1963 .

[35]  Susan C. Johnson Detecting agents. , 2003, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.