Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (5) : 557-570     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00557
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Brain spatio-temporal dynamics of understanding kind versus hostile intentions based on dyadic body movements
HUANG Liang1,YANG Xue2,3,HUANG Zhihua4,WANG Yiwen2,3()
1 Institute of Applied Psychology, Minnan Normal University, Zhangzhou 363000, China
2 Institute of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China
3 Center for China Social Trust Research, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China
4 College of Mathematics and Computer Science, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China
Download: PDF(2947 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Previous social neuroscience studies focused mainly on the neural networks that sustain an understanding of a single individual’s neutral or negative intentions. However, few studies have explored those of different types of social interactive intentions performed by two or a number of individuals and their whole body movements. In addition, the spatio-temporal dynamics of understanding the kind and hostile intentions in the human brain also remain unclear.
In order to address the above issue, the electroencephalograph (EEG) technique was employed to explore the dissociative neural correlates of understanding kind versus hostile intention. Twenty healthy participants were recruited for the experiment. Their behavioral data (accuracy and reaction time) and electrical brain activities were recorded while they were watching colorful photos depicting two actors’ actions and performing an intention inference task (IIT). There were three different types of action intentions: kindness, hostility and non-interactiveness (neutrality). The ERP data was analyzed using the Scan and sLoreta software in an off-line way.
The Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures of mean accuracy showed no significant difference among three conditions, while a main effect of condition existed for reaction time. The reaction times of hostile intention were shorter than those of the kind and neutral intentions, while no significant difference was found between the latter two conditions. The ERP data were analyzed using a three-way repeated measure ANOVA. The ANOVA factors were intention condition (kindness, hostility and neutrality), laterality (left, midline and right areas) and caudality (frontal, central and parietal areas). Electrophysiological results showed, over the frontal area, a significantly more negative amplitude of N250 (170~270 ms) for neutral intention compared to kind and hostile intentions, and the N250 amplitudes for kind intention were also more negative than those for hostile intention, especially on the FZ electrode site. The source localization showed maximum activation in Broadman 10 (BA10), in the vicinity of middle frontal gyrus, for N250 for kind and hostile intentions. At the later stage (270~450 ms), the peak amplitudes of the P300 for hostile intention were more positive than those for the kind and neutral intentions, and the P300 amplitudes for kind intention were also more positive than those for neutral intention over the central, parietal areas as well as the right hemisphere. The maximum activation for P300 of kind and hostile intentions was found in BA45, located in the vicinity of insula, and a stronger activity existed for hostile intention compared to kind intention.
These findings show that there is a spatio-temporal dynamic dissociation between kind and hostile intentions understanding in the brain. Altogether, the current study provides electrophysiological evidence underlying the kind, hostile interactive intentions and non-interactive (neutral) intention understanding, and suggests a prioritized and sustained processing for hostile interactive intention. The study enriches the contents of the two-stage intention-understanding model and the putative Hierarchical & Multi-level Cognitive Framework (HMCF) in Theory of Mind.

Keywords Theory of Mind      kind intention      hostile intention      dyadic interaction      ERP     
ZTFLH:  B845  
Corresponding Authors: Yiwen WANG     E-mail: wangeven@126.com
Issue Date: 20 March 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Liang HUANG
Xue YANG
Zhihua HUANG
Yiwen WANG
Cite this article:   
Liang HUANG,Xue YANG,Zhihua HUANG, et al. Brain spatio-temporal dynamics of understanding kind versus hostile intentions based on dyadic body movements[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(5): 557-570.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00557     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2019/V51/I5/557
  
  
任务 正确率(%) 反应时(ms)
友好意图 93.22 ± 3.07 829 ± 111
敌对意图 95.19 ± 1.51 716 ± 93
中性意图 94.71 ± 3.01 799 ± 82
  
时间窗口(ms) 主效应
F (2, 38)
条件与电极前后分布
交互作用F (4, 76)
条件与电极左右分布
交互作用F (4, 76)
条件与电极前后、左右分布
交互作用F (8, 152)
事后比较
170~270 15.97*** 4.07* 3.37* 8.61*** 1-2, 2-3***, 1-3*
270~450 19.85*** 12.18*** 15.23*** 6.87*** 1-2**, 2-3***, 1-3
  
  
时间窗口(ms) 主效应
F (2, 38)
条件与电极前后分布
交互作用F (4, 76)
条件与电极左右分布
交互作用F (4, 76)
条件与电极前后、左右
分布交互作用F (8, 152)
事后比较
450~550 12.39*** 14.36*** 6.16** 4.27** 1-2, 2-3**, 1-3**
550~650 3.69* 9.10*** 4.34** 2.42* 1-2, 2-3, 1-3*
650~750 0.57 6.71** 5.66** 1.20 1-2, 2-3, 1-3
  
  
1 Adenzato M., Brambilla M., Manenti R., de Lucia L., Trojano L., Garofalo S., .. Cotelli M . ( 2017). Gender differences in cognitive theory of mind revealed by transcranial direct current stimulation on medial prefrontal cortex. Scientific Reports, 7, 41219.
url: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep41219
2 Amoruso L., Finisguerra A., Urgesi C . ( 2018). Contextualizing action observation in the predictive brain: Causal contributions of prefrontal and middle temporal areas. NeuroImage, 177, 68-78.
3 Ansuini C., Cavallo A., Bertone C., & Becchio C . ( 2015). Intentions in the brain: The unveiling of Mister Hyde. Neuroscientist, 21( 2), 126-135.
4 Bahnemann M., Dziobek I., Prehn K., Wolf I., & Heekeren H. R . ( 2010). Sociotopy in the temporoparietal cortex: Common versus distinct processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5( 1), 48-58.
5 Berntson G. G., Norman G. J., Bechara A., Bruss J., Tranel D., & Cacioppo J. T . ( 2011). The insula and evaluative processes. Psychological Science, 22( 1), 80-86.
6 Blakemore, S. J., & Decety, J . ( 2001). From the perception of action to the understanding of intention. Nature Review Neuroscience, 2( 8), 561-567.
7 Borhani K., Borgomaneri S., Làdavas E., & Bertini C . ( 2016). The effect of alexithymia on early visual processing of emotional body postures. Biological Psychology, 115, 1-8.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301051115301034
8 Buon M., Jacob P., Margules S., Brunet I., Dutat M., Cabrol D., & Dupoux E . ( 2014). Friend or foe? Early social evaluation of human interactions. Plos ONE, 9( 2), e88612.
url: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088612
9 Cacioppo J. T., Berntson G. G., & Decety J . ( 2010). Social neuroscience and its relationship to social psychology. Social Cognition, 28( 6), 675-685.
url: http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/10.1521/soco.2010.28.6.675
10 Cacioppo S., Juan E., & Monteleone G . ( 2017). Predicting intentions of a familiar significant other beyond the mirror neuron system. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 155.
11 Carter, E. J., & Pelphrey, K. A . ( 2008). Friend or foe? Brain systems involved in the perception of dynamic signals of menacing and friendly social approaches. Social Neuroscience, 3( 2), 151-163.
12 Catmur, C. ( 2015). Understanding intentions from actions: Direct perception, inference, and the roles of mirror and mentalizing systems. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 426-433.
13 Centelles L., Assaiante C., Nazarian B., Anton J.-L., & Schmitz C . ( 2011). Recruitment of both the mirror and the mentalizing networks when observing the social interactions depicted by point-lights: A neuroimaging study. Plos ONE, 6( 1), e15749.
14 , Decety, J. & Cacioppo, S . ( 2012). The speed of morality: A high-density electrical neuroimaging study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 108( 11), 3068-3072.
15 Gan T., Shi R., Liu, C. & Luo Y. J. ( 2018). Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on the right temporo-parietal junction modulates the helpful intention processing. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50( 1), 36-46.
15 [ 甘甜, 石睿, 刘超, 罗跃嘉 . ( 2018). 经颅直流电刺激右侧颞顶联合区对助人意图加工的影响. 心理学报, 50( 1), 36-46.]
16 Georgescu A. L., Kuzmanovic B., Santos N. S., Tepest R., Bente G., Tittgemeyer M., & Vogeley K . ( 2014). Perceiving nonverbal behavior: Neural correlates of processing movement fluency and contingency in dyadic interactions. Human Brain Mapping, 35( 4), 1362-1378.
17 Gilead M., Katzir M., Eyal T., & Liberman N . ( 2016). Neural correlates of processing "self-conscious" vs. "basic" emotions. Neuropsychologia, 81, 207-218.
18 Grafton, S. T . ( 2009). Embodied cognition and the simulation of action to understand others. Annals New York Academy of Science, 1156, 97-117.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04425.x
19 Güroğlu B., Haselager G. J. T., van Liershout, C. F. M., Takashima A., Rijpkema M., & Fernández G . ( 2008) Why are friends special? Implementing a social interaction simulation task to probe the neural correlates of friendship. NeuroImage, 39( 2), 903-910.
20 Huang L., Deng Z. X., Ren H. L., Lin G. Y., & Wang Y. W . ( 2018). The role of stimulus ecologicalness and genders in understanding kind versus hostile intentions. Journal of Psychological Science, 41( 2), 435-440.
20 [ 黄亮, 邓兆鑫, 任翰林, 林国耀, 王益文 . ( 2018). 材料生态性和性别因素对理解友好与敌对意图的影响. 心理科学, 41( 2), 435-440.]
21 Isoda, M. ( 2016). Understanding intentional actions from observers' viewpoints: A social neuroscience perspective. Neuroscience Research, 112, 1-9.
22 Kaiser, M. D., Pelphrey, K. A . ( 2012). Disrupted action perception in autism: Behavioral evidence, neuroendophenotypes, and diagnostic utility. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2( 1), 25-35.
23 Liberman Z., Kinzler K. D., & Woodward A. L . ( 2014). Friends or foes: Infants use shared evaluations to infer others' social relationships. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143( 3), 966-971.
24 Liu D., Sabbagh M. A., Gehring W. J., & Wellman H. M . ( 2004). Decoupling beliefs from reality in the brain: An ERP study of theory of mind. Neuroreport, 15( 6), 991-995.
25 Malle, B. F., & Holbrook, J . ( 2012). Is there a hierarchy of social inferences? The likelihood and speed of inferring intentionality, mind, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102( 4), 661-684.
26 Maranesi M., Livi A., Fogassi L., Rizzolatti G., & Bonini L . ( 2014) Mirror neuron activation prior to action observation in a predictable context. Journal of Neuroscience, 34( 45), 14827-14832.
27 Moser J. S., Huppert J. D., Duval E., & Simons R. F . ( 2008). Face processing biases in social anxiety: An electrophysiological study. Biological Psychology, 78( 1), 93-103.
28 Möttönen R., Farmer H., & Watkins K. E . ( 2016). Neural basis of understanding communicative actions: Changes associated with knowing the actor’s intention and the meanings of the actions. Neuropsychologia, 81, 230-237.
29 Ortigue S., Sinigaglia C., Rizzolatti G., & Grafton S. T . ( 2010). Understanding actions of others: The electrodynamics of the left and right hemispheres. A high-density EEG neuroimaging study. Plos One, 5( 8), e12160.
30 Proverbio A. M., Riva F., Paganelli L., Cappa S. F., Canessa N., Perani D., & Zani A . ( 2011). Neural coding of cooperative vs. affective human interactions: 150 ms to code the action's purpose. Plos One, 6( 7), e22026.
31 Sinke C. B. A., Sorger B., Goebel R., & de Gelder B . ( 2010). Tease or threat? Judging social interactions from bodily expressions. NeuroImage, 49( 2), 1717-1727.
32 van Wount, M., & Sanfey, A. G . ( 2008). Friend or foe: The effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition, 108( 3), 796-803.
33 Vrticka P., Andersson F., Sander D., & Vuilleumier P . ( 2009). Memory for friends or foes: The social context of past encounters with faces modulates their subsequent neural traces in the brain. Social Neuroscience, 4( 5), 384-401.
34 Walter H., Adenzato M., Ciaramidaro A., Enrici I., Pia, L. & Bara, B. G. ( 2004). Understanding intentions in social interaction: The role of the anterior paracingulate cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16( 10), 1854-1863.
35 Wang Y. W., Huang L., Lin C., Zhang Z., Liang F., & Shen D . ( 2012). Spatio-temporal brain dynamics of understanding social versus private intentions: An electrical neuroimaging study. Neuroquantology, 10( 4), 733-743.
36 Wang Y. W., Huang L., Xu S., Yuan B., Xu Y. J., & Li H. Y . ( 2012). ERP time course of understanding private versus communicative intentions. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44( 12), 1618-1627.
36 [ 王益文, 黄亮, 徐晟, 袁博, 徐艳娇, 李洪玉 . ( 2012). 理解私人意图与交际意图的ERP证据. 心理学报, 44( 12), 1618-1627.]
37 Wang Y. W., Huang L., Zhang Z., Song J., & Bai L. Y . ( 2014). Kindness or hostility? Electrical brain dynamics of understanding interactive intentions of other people. Science in China, Series C, Life Science, 44( 7), 736-746.
37 [ 王益文, 黄亮, 张振, 宋娟, 白丽英 . ( 2014). 友好还是敌对?理解互动意图的大脑动态时程. 中国科学: 生命科学, 44( 7), 736-746.]
38 Wang Y. W., Huang L., Zhang W., Zhang Z., & Cacioppo S . ( 2015). Spatio-temporal dynamics of kind versus hostile intentions in the human brain: An electrical neuroimaging study. Social Neuroscience, 10( 3), 253-267.
39 Wang Y. W., Lin C. D., Yuan B., Huang L., & Shen D. L . ( 2010). Person perception precedes theory of mind: An event related potential analysis. Neuroscience, 170( 1), 238-246.
40 Wang Y. W., Zheng Y. W., Lin C. D., Wu J., & Shen D. L . ( 2011). Electrophysiological correlates of reading the single-and interactive-mind. Frontier in Human Neuroscience, 5, 64.
41 Wang Y. W., Zheng Y. W., Shen D. L., Cui L., & Yan G. L . ( 2012). Reading another’s mind and reading the interactive mind from Chinese idioms: Evidience from eye-movements and ERPs. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44( 1), 100-111.
41 [ 王益文, 郑玉玮, 沈德立, 崔磊, 闫国利 . ( 2012). 解读成语中的他人心理与互动心理: 来自眼动和ERP的证据. 心理学报, 44( 1), 100-111.]
42 Watanabe T., Yahata N., Abe O., Kuwabara H., Inoue H., Takano Y., .. Yamasue H . ( 2012). Diminished medial prefrontal activity behind autistic social judgments of incongruent information. Plos ONE, 7( 6), e39561.
43 Weymar M., Bradley M. M., Hamm A. O., & Lang P. J . ( 2013). When fear forms memories: Threat of shock and brain potentials during encodingand recognition. Cortex, 49( 3), 819-826.
44 Wieser M. J., McTeague L. M., & Keil A . ( 2011). Sustained preferential processing of social threat cues: Bias without competition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23( 8), 1973-1986.
45 Wu H., Chen C., Cheng D., Yang S., Huang R., Cacioppo S., & Luo Y-J . ( 2014). The mediation effect of menstrual phase on negative emotion processing: Evidence from N2. Social Neuroscience, 9( 3), 278-288.
46 Yoder, K. J., & Decety, J . ( 2014). The good, the bad, and the just: Justice sensitivity predicts neural response during moral evaluation of actions performed by others. Journal of Neuroscience, 34( 12), 4161-4166.
47 Young, L., & Saxe, R . ( 2009). Innocent intentions: A correlation between forgiveness for accidental harm and neural activity. Neuropsychologia, 47( 10), 2065-2072.
[1] Dongjie XIE, Hao LU, Yanjie SU. Pay-forward effect of resource allocation in preschoolers: Role of theory of mind and empathy[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(9): 1018-1028.
[2] WANG Lili, FENG Wenfeng, JIA Lina, ZHU Xiangru, LUO Wenbo, YANG Suyong, LUO Yue-jia. Emotional processing of winning and losing facial expression and body posture[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(8): 892-906.
[3] YANG Qingqing, HU Na, CHEN Xu, NIU Juan, ZHAI Jing.  Electrophysiological evidences of different emotional regulation strategies between the avoidant and the secure attachment individuals in the context of lovers, intimacy[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(3): 306-316.
[4] TAO Aihua, LIU Yonghe, WANG Pei.  Moderating effects of conflict types on disappointment in interpersonal conflict[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(2): 235-242.
[5] NIE Chunyan, WANG Tao, ZHAO Peng, CUI Nan. The influence of interpretation frame on the evaluation of culturally mixed products: The moderating effect of comparison focus and interpretation strategy[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(12): 1438-1448.
[6] HAN Meng, MAO Xinrui, CAI Mengtong, JIA Xi, GUO Chunyan.  The effect of positive and negative signs on the SNARC effect in the magnitude judgment task[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 995-1008.
[7] FU Yilei, LUO Yuejia, CUI Fang.  Consistency of choice modulates outcome evaluation: Evidence from ERP studies[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1089-1099.
[8] DUAN Jinyun; SHI Jiayi; LING Bin. The influence of high commitment organization on employee voice behavior: A dual-process model examination[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(4): 539-553.
[9] YANG Zhaoning; GU Zibei; WANG Dujuan; TAN Xuyun; WANG Xiaoming. The effect of anger and sadness on prosocial decision making: The role of the interpersonal attribution of responsibility[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 393-403.
[10] ZHAO Simin; WU Yan; LI Tianhong; GUO Qingtong. Morpho-semantic processing in Chinese word recognition: An ERP study[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 296-306.
[11] CUI Liying, HE Xing, LUO Junlong, HUANG Xiaojiao, CAO Weijia, CHEN Xiaomei.  The effects of moral punishment and relationship punishment on junior middle school students’ cooperation behaviors in public goods dilemma[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(10): 1322-1333.
[12] ZHANG Lin; LIU Shen; XU Qiang; WU Xiaoyan; YANG Mengyuan. Long-term effect of violence exposure in real-life on aggressive behaviors: A moderated mediation model[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(1): 50-59.
[13] LI Caina; SUN Ying; TUO Rui; LIU Jia. The effects of attachment security on interpersonal trust: The moderating role of attachment anxiety[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(8): 989-1001.
[14] LIU Fang; DING Jinhong; ZHANG Qin. Positive affect and selective attention: Approach-motivation intensity influences the early and late attention processing stages[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(7): 794-803.
[15] SONG Juan; GUO Fengbo; ZHANG Zhen; YUAN Sheng; JIN Hua; WANG Yiwen. Interpersonal distance influences on pain empathy: Friends priming effect[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(7): 833-844.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech