Neural activity tracking identity and confidence in social information
- Wellcome Centre of Integrative Neuroimaging (WIN), Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, United Kingdom
- Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, University College London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Institute for Mental Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Centre for Developmental Science, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Wellcome Centre of Integrative Neuroimaging (WIN), Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, United Kingdom
Figures
Figure 1 with 2 supplements
Social and non-social task versions and experimental design.
Participants performed a social and non-social version of an information-seeking task. Versions only differed in their framing but were matched in their statistical properties. Participants learned …
Figure 1—figure supplement 1
Task design.
The task consisted of three phases: decision, confidence, and outcome phase. In the decision phase, participants select between two predictors (either social advisors for the social version or …
Figure 1—figure supplement 2
Social instruction procedure.
In the socially framed version of the experiment, participants were instructed that predictors represented previous players who had already performed a different type of behavioural task. In this …
Figure 2 with 2 supplements
Interval setting in relation to the performance of social and non-social advisors.
(a) Participants’ interval setting (corresponded more closely to the true predictor performance error angular error) of the social advisor compared to the non-social cue. Changes of mind in …
-
Figure 2—source data 1
Source data include data shown in Figure 2a-c.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/71315/elife-71315-fig2-data1-v1.xlsx
Figure 2—figure supplement 1
Additional behavioural results.
(a) There was no significant difference in the mean angular error observed between the social and non-social version (mean across angular errors, paired t-test, t(23) = −1.18, p = 0.25). There was …
Figure 2—figure supplement 2
Task statistics and Bayesian model.
Panels depict the mapping between observations during the task (A), their statistical properties (B), and subjective beliefs about these properties derived with Bayes’ rule (C, D). (A) A …
Figure 3 with 1 supplement
Noisy Bayesian model captures differences observed between social and non-social conditions.
(a) We tested whether there are differences in the belief update made about social or non-social information. We hypothesized belief updates to be inherently more uncertain (i.e., wider …
Figure 3—figure supplement 1
Comparison between original and noisy Bayesian model.
This figure relates to Figure 3 in the main text. (a) Here, we show an example of model-derived estimates of uncertainty and accuracy for one participant who selects the same predictor multiple …
Figure 4 with 4 supplements
Social confidence and advisor identity in dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) and posterior temporoparietal junction (pTPJ).
We used a region-of-interest approach based on two independent a priori regions of interest (ROIs) in dmPFC (a, left) and pTPJ (b, left). Activation in both areas covary with the combination of …
-
Figure 4—source data 1
Source data include data shown in Figure 4a (contrast: current + past interval setting in dorsomedial prefrontal cortex [dmPFC] region of interest [ROI]), Figure 4b (contrast: current + past interval setting in posterior temporoparietal junction [pTPJ] ROI), Figure 4e (separate effects of current and past interval setting in dmPFC ROI for social condition only), Figure 4e (separate effects of current and past interval setting in pTPJ ROI for social condition only), Figure 4h (Exemplar Discriminability Index [EDI] values for dmPFC ROI), and Figure 4h (EDI values for pTPJ ROI).
Source data include values for both social and non-social conditions.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/71315/elife-71315-fig4-data1-v1.xlsx
Figure 4—figure supplement 1
Whole-brain cluster-corrected effects for past and current interval setting in social and non-social conditions.
For visualization purposes, brain activations are shown with different z-threshold. All z-thresholds at which we show the activation are denoted under each brain picture. Whole-brain effects are …
Figure 4—figure supplement 2
No difference between neural activity related to current and past interval settings for non-social predictors in dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) (panel a) and posterior temporoparietal junction (pTPJ) (panel b).
This panel relates to Figure 2e, f and shows that, in contrast to effects found for social predictors, there was no significant difference between the effects of current and past interval settings …
Figure 4—figure supplement 3
Exploratory whole-brain searchlight analysis.
We performed a whole-brain searchlight analysis (N = 16) to test for the specificity of dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) and posterior temporoparietal junction (pTPJ) in encoding social …
Figure 4—figure supplement 4
Control analyses.
We used two different sets of stimuli, facial stimuli in the social condition and fruit stimuli in the non-social conditions. We tested whether observed differences between conditions can be …
Author response image 1
Confidence interval for the first encounter of each predictor in social and non-social conditions.
There was no initial bias in predicting the performance of social or non-social predictors.
Additional files
-
Supplementary file 1
Univariate whole-brain results.
Relates to Figure 4 and Figure 4—figure supplement 1. Z-values and coordinates for exploratory fMRI-GLM1 for social and non-social conditions (family-wise error [FWE] cluster corrected with z > 2.3, p < 0.05).
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/71315/elife-71315-supp1-v1.pdf
-
Transparent reporting form
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/71315/elife-71315-transrepform1-v1.docx
