Shifts in neural representations, not gaze, track how people reinterpret ambiguous social scenes
Sava-Segal, C. A.; Benson, T. G.; Finn, E. S.
Show abstract
How do we come to "see" the same thing differently after hearing someone else's perspective? Revising an interpretation could reflect changes in how the brain represents the meaning of what we see, changes in how we visually sample the input, or both. To disentangle these mechanisms, we developed MindLibs, an adaptive fMRI and eye-tracking paradigm in which participants generate interpretations of ambiguous photographs and then view alternative interpretations chosen in real time to vary in semantic content from their own. Exposure to semantically distant alternatives revealed a strong link between reinterpretation as reported behaviorally and representational shifts in association cortex, but no systematic relationship between reinterpretation and changes in gaze. In particular, representational shifts in lateral default-mode network regions (DMN-B) predicted reinterpretation independently of shifts in frontoparietal, attention, and visual networks, and independently of whether gaze changed. In contrast, shifts in visual cortex tracked reinterpretation only when gaze also shifted, and contributed no unique variance beyond DMN-B. These findings identify higher-order conceptual reconfiguration, rather than perceptual resampling, as the primary account of how people revise the meaning of an ambiguous scene.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Common and distinct neural correlates of social interaction perception and theory of mind 95%
- Binding items to contexts through conjunctive neural representations with the Method of Loci 94%
- Brain meta-state transitions demarcate thoughts across task contexts, exposing the mental noise of trait neuroticism 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.