Levels of Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences Social-Cognitive Sociocultural Neuroscience Social Psychology Social Cognition

Fall 2015 Psychological

Cognitive Psychology Cognitive Neuroscience Social Neuroscience

1 Biophysical 2

The Evolution of On Terminology Social Neuroscience • Physiological Psychology (1870s) – Animal Research Neurology NEUROSCIENCE • Neuropsychology (1955, 1963) Neuroanatomy Molecular Integrative – Behavioral Analysis and – Brain Insult, Injury, or Disease Neurophysiology Cellular Cognitive • Neuroscience (1963) Systems Affective – Interdisciplinary

• Molecular/Cellular Behavioral Conative(?) •Systems Social • Behavioral 3 4

Physiological Psychology Physiological Psychology Morgan (1943), p. 1 Teitelbaum (1967), p. 2

“[P]hysiological psychology… [is] the “Physiological psychology… is a method study of the relation between the of approach to the understanding of organism’s physiological processes and behavior as well as a set of principles its behavior; or, since behavior is the that relate the function and organization outcome of physiological events, we of the nervous system to the may say that physiological psychology phenomena of behavior.” is the study of the physiological mechanisms of behavior.”

5 6

1 An Agenda for Another Take on Levels of Analysis The Cognitive Neurosciences, 1e Marr (1982) Gazzaniga (1995), p. xiii

“At some point in the future, cognitive neuroscience will Computational • Computational be able to describe the – Computations Relating Inputs to Outputs algorithms that drive Algorithmic • Algorithmic Level structural neural elements – How that Computation is Executed at the into the physiological activity Implementation Level of Information-Processing that results in perception, Marr (1982) cognition, and perhaps even • Implementational Level consciousness.” – How Algorithm is Embodied as a Physical 7 Process 8

Methods for An Agenda for Social-Cognitive Neuroscience The Cognitive Neurosciences, 3e Gazzaniga (2004), p. 1213 • Traditional Neuropsychology – Social Cognitive Effects of Brain Lesions “Cognitive neuroscience attempts to • Brain Imaging understand the biological underpinnings – Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of complex cognition”, [and to] “offer – Event-Related Potentials mechanistic analysis of cognition from – “Single-Cell” Recording gene expression up to cognition.” • Brain Stimulation – Electrical Stimulation – Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation 9 – Transcranial Electrical Stimulation 10

An Agenda for The Rhetoric of Constraint Social-Cognitive Neuroscience in Cognitive Neuroscience Fiske & Taylor (2013), p. 20-22 Gazzaniga et al. (1998), p. xiii

“Brains Matter… “The disciplines of cognitive psychology, behavioral neurology, Computational “Taken together, these measures open new and neuroscience now feed off each other, contributing a new Algorithmic doors into the life of the social mind. view to the understanding of the

mechanisms of the human mind.” Implementation “Any computational theory must be “For social cognition researchers, the Marr (1982) possibilities also allow dissociating distinct sensitive to the real biology of the social cognitive processes on the basis of nervous system, constrained by how the brain actually works.” distinct neuroscientific responses.” 11 12

2 “Dry Mind” vs. “Wet Mind” The Cognitive Neuroscience Triangle Kosslyn & Koenig (1992), p. 4 Ochsner & Kosslyn (1999), p. 324, 325

“Mental events can be examined without regard for the brain. This ABILITIES approach is like understanding the properties and uses of a building •Attention independent of the materials used to construct it; the shapes and •Vision •Memory functions of rooms, windows, arches, and so forth can be discussed •etc. without reference to whether the building is made of wood, brick, or stone. We call this approach Dry Mind. In contrast, we call the approach of cognitive neuroscience Wet Mind. This approach capitalizes on the idea that the mind is what the brain does: a description of mental events is a description of brain function, and facts about the brain are needed to characterize these events…. COMPUTATION NEUROSCIENCE Although the nature of the materials restricts the kinds of buildings that can •Computational Analyses •Neuropsychology •Computer Simulations •Neurophysiology be built, it does not characterize their function or design. Nevertheless, •Network Models •Anatomy the kinds of designs that are feasible depend on the nature of the •etc. •etc. materials. Skyscrapers cannot be built with only boards and nails, and minds do not arise from just any substrate.” “Explanations [of cognitive abilities] rest on conceptions of how the brain computes.” 13 14

The Rhetoric of Constraint “Rethinking Social Intelligence” in Social-Cognitive Neuroscience Goleman (2006), p. 324 “Knowledge of the body and brain can usefully The new neuroscientific findings on social life have the constrain and inspire concepts and theories of potential to reinvigorate the social and behavioral psychological function....” sciences. The basic assumptions of economics, for Cacioppo & Berntson (1992), p. 1025 example, have been challenged by the emerging “neuro- “Cognitive psychology underwent [a] economics”, which studies the brain during decision- making. Its findings have shaken standard thinking in transformation as data about the brain began economics…. to be used to constrain theories about the A rethinking of social intelligence should more fully reflect cognitive processes underlying memory, the operation of the social brain, so adding often-ignored attention, and vision, among other topics.” capacities that nonetheless matter immensely for our Ochsner & Lieberman (2001), p. 726 relationships.

15 16

Psychology and Neuroscience Explaining Hippocampal Amnesia Kihlstrom (2010)

• “Learning” • “Psychology without neuroscience is still the • Short-Term vs. Long-Term science of mental life. • Encoding vs. Retrieval • “Neuroscience without psychology is just the • Shallow vs. Deep Processing science of neurons.” • Procedural vs. Declarative Memory • Episodic vs. Semantic Memory • Explicit vs. Implicit Memory • Relational vs. Non-Relational Memory 17 18

3 Two Views of Brain Function Functional Organization of the Cortex Morgan & King (1966), Fig. 20.1

• Brain as General-Purpose Information- Processor – Learning – Associationism • Doctrine of Functional Specialization – Localization of Function – Brain Systems “The extreme frontal area of the cortex, sometimes called the prefrontal cortex, Is a region about which much has been claimed, but little has been proved.” 19 20

The Doctrine of Modularity Examples of Modularity Fodor (1983)

• Domain-Specific Transducers • Mandatory • Language • Limited Central Access • Visual Perception Modules •Fast • Informationally Encapsulated • Motor Behavior Central System(s) • Shallow Outputs – Including Speech • Characteristic Breakdown • Social Cognition? (Outputs) • Characteristic Development – And other aspects of social interaction • Fixed Neural Architecture

21 22

The Phrenological Faculties Spurzheim (1834) A Classic Phrenological Head

New York Times 23 24

4 Social Faculties in Phrenology Gross (1998) Milestones in Functional Specialization 1. Destructiveness after Spurzheim (1834) 2. Amativeness 3. Philoprogenitiveness • Language Function 4. Adhesiveness 5. Inhabitiveness – Broca (1860) 6. Combativeness 7. Secretiveness • Motor (Expressive) Aphasia 8. Acquisitiveness 10. Cautiousness – Wernicke (1874) 11. Approbativeness • Sensory (Receptive) Aphasia 12. Self-Esteem 13. Benevolence 14. Veneration 16. Conscientiousness 17. Hope • Personality and Social Interaction 20. Mirthfulness – Harlow (1848, 1850, 1868) 21. Imitativeness 22. Individuality • The Case of Phineas Gage 33. Language 35. Causality 25 26

The Case of Phineas Gage Harlow (1848, 1850, 1868; Macmillan (1986, 2000) Phineas Gage Macmillan (2000) • Duttonville (Cavendish), Vermont – 4:30 PM, Wednesday, September 13, 1848 • Foreman on Railroad Construction Crew – Rutland & Burlington Railroad – Tamping Blasting Powder into Rock • 3’8” Long, 1-1/4” Diameter • Treated by John Martyn Harlow • Survived, Returned Home to Lebanon, N.H.

– 12 Weeks After Near-Total Frontal Lobotomy27 28 Illustrations from Macmillan (2000)

Harlow’s Final Assessment of Gage Harlow (1868), in Macmillan (2000)

The equilibrium or balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities, seems to have been destroyed. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operation, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, though untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart business man, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends 29 and acquaintances said he was “no longer Gage.” 30

5 Gage Was “No longer Gage” Gage’s Injury Harlow (1868) 1. Destructiveness 2. Amativeness 3. Philoprogenitiveness 4. Adhesiveness Premorbid Personality Postmorbid Personality 5. Inhabitiveness 6. Combativeness • Efficient, Capable • Fitful 7. Secretiveness 8. Acquisitiveness • Shrewd, Smart • Capricious 10. Cautiousness • Energetic • Impatient of Advice 11. Approbativeness 12. Self-Esteem • Persistent • Obstinate 13. Benevolence 14. Veneration • Lacking in Deference 16. Conscientiousness 17. Hope 20. Mirthfulness 21. Imitativeness 22. Individuality 33. Language 31 35. Causality 32

Immediate Aftermath Later History of Phineas Gage Harlow (1868), Macmillan (1986, 2000) Harlow (1868), Macmillan (1986, 2000) • Attempted to return to work, 1849 • Died May 21, 1860 (Not 1861) – First Epileptic Seizure – Buried at Lone Mountain Cemetery, Laurel Hill • Traveled Around New England 1849-1851 • Exhumed 1867 – Barnum’s Museum (?) – Skull Taken to Harvard Medical School, 1868 • Livery Stable, Stagecoaching • David Dustin Shattuck, Brother-in-Law – Member of S.F. Board of Supervisors – New England, 1851-1852 – Brain Not Preserved – Chile, 1852-1859 • Remains Removed to Colma • San Francisco (1859) • Cypress Abbey – Farm Laborer – Laurel Hill Mound, Pioneer Monument – Seizures Persisted 33 34

An Odd Kind of Fame A Cute Introduction to the Macmillan (2000) Doctrine of Modularity http://nancysbraintalks.mit.edu/video/neuroanatomy-lesson-directors-cut

35 36

6 Theory of Multiple Intelligences Methods for Identifying Gardner (1983) Multiple Intelligences Gardner (1983) • Linguistic • Logical-Mathematical • Identifiable Core Operations • Spatial – Impression-Formation, Causal Attribution • Musical • Bodily-Kinesthetic • Psychometrics • Intrapersonal – Vineland Test of Social Maturity – Ability to Gain Access to One’s Own • Experimental Tasks Internal, Emotional Life – Detection of Deception • Interpersonal • Exceptional Cases – Ability to Notice and Make Distinctions • Isolation by Brain Damage Among Other Individuals 37 38

Elements of Mindreading Isolation by Brain Damage Baron-Cohen (1995)

• Impair Cognitive, Spare Social • Intentionality Detector – Alzheimer’s Disease – Interpret Events in Terms of Goals/Desires – Down Syndrome • Eye-Direction Detector – The Case of Zazetsky (Luria, 1972) – Detects the Presence of Eyes • Impair Social/Emotional, Spare Cognitive – Computes Direction of Gaze: “At Me” or Not – The Case of Phineas Gage (Harlow, 1868) • Shared-Attention Mechanism – Pick’s Disease – Assumes Relation Between Knowledge, Seeing – Fronto-Temporal Dementia • Theory-of-Mind Mechanism

39 – Infer Another’s Mental States from Behavior 40

A Faculty of Social Cognition? Functions of the Social Brain Jackendoff (1992, 1994) Goleman (2006)

Social Awareness Social Facility • Possible Central Modules (Relationship Management) – Conceptual Structure • Primal Empathy • Interaction Synchrony – Spatial Cognition • Empathic Accuracy • Self-Presentation – Body Representation • Listening • Influence –Music? • Social Cognition • Concern for Others – Social Cognition •etc. •etc. • Who is it? • What is this person’s relation to me and others?

41 42

7 Arguments for a Arguments for a Faculty of Social Cognition Faculty of Social Cognition • Domain Specificity • Universality of Cultural Parameters – Social Organization Unrelated to Perception – Kinship • Specialized Input Capacities – Ingroup-Outgroup Distinctions – Face and Voice Recognition – Social Dominance – Affect Detection – Ownership, Property Rights – Intentionality – Social Roles • Developmental Priority – Group Rituals – Proper Names •Evolution • Animate vs. Inanimate Objects – Mammalian Social Structure 43 44 •Primates

Some Social Modules in the Brain Modules for Social Cognition Kanwisher et al. (1997); Downing et al. (2001); Saxe & Kanwisher (2003) Jackendoff (1992, 1994, 2007)

Specialized Input Universal Cultural Capacities Parameters Face Recognition Kinship

Voice Recognition Ingroup vs. Outgroup “Fusiform Face Area” Affect Detection Social Dominance “Temporo-Parietal Junction Intentionality Detection Ownership, Property – Mind Area” Rights Developmental Priority Social Roles Animate vs. Inanimate Group Rituals Proper Names 45 “Extrastriate Body Area” 46

Topography of the Social Mind After Lieberman (2007), Figures 2 and 3 The Face as a Social Stimulus

1. Theory of Mind 2. Dispositional Attribution 3. Empathy 4. Visual Self-Recognition • Universal Social Stimulus 5. Agency Judgments 6. Self-Reflection – Obvious Evolutionary Significance 7. Autobiographical Memory 8. Self-Knowledge 9. Impulse Control • Contact Between Infant, Caregiver 10. Reappraisal 11. Affect Labeling – Beginnings of Attachment 12. Placebo Effects 13. Mirror Neuron System 14. Reflected Appraisals • Face in Social Interaction 15. Judging Similar Others 16. Attitude Processes – Physical Attraction 17. Social Connection 18. Social Rejection 19. Social Reasoning – Communicate Emotion 20. Moral Decision-Making 21. Fairness and Trust – Cues to Deception Processes 47 48

8 Aspects of Face Perception Bruce & Young (1986). Visual Object Agnosia

• Structural Description • Can Describe an Object – Viewpoint-Centered • But Cannot… – Expression-Independent – Name Object • Expression Analysis – Recognize Object as Familiar • Facial Speech Analysis – Demonstrate How Object is Used • Face Recognition • Name Generation “Normal Percept Stripped of Meaning” Dissociations Among Neurological Patients 49 50 Analogous to Dyslexias

Prosopagnosia The Fusiform Face Area? Bodamer (1947) In Extra-Striate Cortex Sergent et al. (1992); Kanwisher et al. (1997) • Specific Deficit in Recognizing Faces – Not in Perceiving, Describing Faces – Inability to Put Name to Face •“Pure” – Specific to Face

• Bilateral Damage, Visual Association Cortex – Occipital, Temporal Lobes • Brodmann’s Areas 18, 19, 37 The Face Area? – The “Face Area”? 51 52

Strong Modularity in Face Perception Kanwisher (2000) What’s This?

“[A] cognitive function with its own private piece of real estate in the brain”

53 54

9 What’s This? What’s This?

55 56

Who’s This? What’s This?

57 58

Levels of Categorization Levels of Categorization Gauthier (1998); Gauthier & Tarr (2000); Tarr & Gauthier (2000) Gauthier (1998); Gauthier & Tarr (2000); Tarr & Gauthier (2000)

• Basic Object Level • Subordinate Object Level • “What is this?” • “What is this?”

• Subordinate Level • Subordinate Level • “Who is this?” • “Who is this?”

59 60

10 The Entry-Level Shift Is it a Bird? Is it a Pelican? Bukach et al. (2006) after Rosch ((1976) Gauthier et al. (1997)

61 62

Categorization and Expertise Expertise and Categorization Level Bukach, Gauthier, & Tarr (2006) Gauthier et al. (2000)

• Expertise –Cars –Birds • Expert Training – Greebles – Snowflakes – Fingerprints

63 64

The FFA in Greeble Identification Gauthier et al. (1999)

“Greeble” Stimulus Figures Gauthier, Behrmann, & Tarr (1999), Exps. 3-4; Scott Yu

65 66

11 Fusiform Face Area or Flexible Fusiform Area? Tarr & Gautier (2000) • Localization of Content Face and Snowflake – Recognition of Faces vs. Nonfaces Stimuli • Localization of Function Gauthier, Behrmann, & Tarr (1999), Exps. 7, 9 – Recognition at Subordinate Levels of Categorization • Specific Faces, Nonfaces

67 68

Alternative Interpretations of the FFA The Problem of Spatial Blurring McGugin et al. (2012)

• Fusiform Face Area – Dedicated to Face Identification • Flexible Fusiform Area • Limited Resolution of Standard fMRI – Dedicated to Subordinate-Level Classification – Used in Expertise Studies • Faces a Universal Example • True FFA Revealed by High-Resolution fMRI • Also Underlies Other Areas of Expertise – Have Not Measured Expertise • Fusiform Face Area Redux – Programmed for Face Identification • Nonface-Selective Regions Border True FFA – Can Be Recruited for Other Areas of Expertise – Need High-Resolution fMRI to Separate Them?

69 70

Stimulus Materials for HR-fMRI Method McGugin et al. (2012) McGugin et al. (2012) • 7-Tesla Magnet – Run at Standard Resolution (SR-fMRI) – Run at High Resolution (HR-fMRI) • Subjects Varied in Car Expertise • Matching Task – Same Person? – Same Make and Model of Car? • Focus on FFA – Anterior (FFA1) vs. Posterior (FFA2) 71 72

12 The FFA in a Car-Expert Summary of Findings McGugin et al. (2012) McGugin et al. (2012)

• HR-FFA Contains Non-Face Selective Voxels • Car Expertise Effects in HR-FFA – Both Non-Selective and Face-Selective Voxels • Expertise Effects Limited to Face-Selective Patch • Overlap Between Object Expertise and Face- Selectivity

73 74

Separating Posterior and Anterior Regions Correlations Outside FFA McGugin et al. (2012) McGugin et al. (2012)

75 76

Activations in the Right Hemisphere The Bottom Line (So Far) on the FFA McGugin et al. (2012) McGugin et al. (2012) • When You Don’t Consider Expertise Faces>Objects Objects>Faces – HR-fMRI Reveals Face-Selective Regions • When You Do Consider Expertise – Object Sensitivity Present in “FFA” • Expertise Overlaps with Face-Selectivity – Tight Spatial Contiguity – Especially When Expertise Involves Holistic FFA Processing • Face-Selectivity Still Possible 77 – At Level of Individual Neurons 78

13 A New Approach: Brain Mapping Gallant et al. (2011) Prospect for a Social Neuroscience • “Brain Reading” • The Social Psychology May Be Right or – Record Entire Activity of Brain Wrong. • As Subject Performs Some Task – Reconstruct Stimulus • The Neuroscience May Be Right or • From Pattern of Brain Activity Wrong. • Determine Whether Region of Interest • But If the Social Psychology is Wrong, Contains Task-Specific Information the Social Neuroscience Can’t Be Right. • So Far, Nonsocial Perception – Faces May Come Soon! 79 80

14