Advertisement

Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 189–197 | Cite as

The Neural Correlates of Visual Perspective Taking: a Critical Review

  • Henryk Bukowski
Genetics and Neuroscience (C O'Tuathaigh, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Genetics and Neuroscience

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Visual perspective taking (VPT) enables us to understand, anticipate, and interact with other social beings by accurately computing how and what they see in their environment. The present review provides an up-to-date review of the neural mechanisms underpinning VPT that integrates all neuroscientific methods and, importantly, organizes studies based on the distinct cognitive dimensions of VPT they measure.

Recent Findings

Recent studies are characterized by a greater use of transcranial stimulation and a more diverse use of contrasts in analyses. Recent findings suggest namely that the temporoparietal junction has multiple roles in VPT and that the dorsal posterior precuneus is neither related to the inferential process nor the decentering process of VPT.

Summary

By organizing the findings according the respective cognitive processes tapped into, this review sheds a new light on the neural bases of VPT and advocates for an approach that acknowledges the multidimensionality of VPT.

Keywords

Visual perspective taking Spatial perspective taking Visuo-spatial Mentalizing Cognitive empathy Neuroimaging 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Colm O’Tuhataigh for the invitation to contribute to CBNR. H.B. is supported by the MOVE-IN Louvain—incoming postdoctoral fellowship co-funded by the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions of the European Commision.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there are no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Keysar B, Barr DJ, Balin JA, Brauner JS. Taking perspective in conversation: the role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychol Sci. 2000;11(1):32–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bukowski, H. What influences perspective taking? A dynamic and multidimensional approach. Doctoral thesis. Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium 2014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Samson D, Apperly IA, Braithwaite JJ, Andrews BJ, Bodley Scott SE, Scott SEB. Seeing it their way: evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010;36(5):1255–66.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018729.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    • Ramsey R, Hansen P, Apperly I, Samson D. Seeing it my way or your way: frontoparietal brain areas sustain viewpoint-independent perspective selection processes. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013;25(5):670–84.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00345. This fMRI study gathers convincing evidence that executive processes are recruited during the consistent/self-perspective condition of the Dot paradigm. The important implication is that it suggests that, in the Dot paradigm, the other person’s perspective needs to be suppressed in order to take our own perpespective despite that the perspectives are consistent. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deliens G, Bukowski H, Slama H, Surtees A, Cleeremans A, Samson D, et al. The impact of sleep deprivation on visual perspective taking. J Sleep Res. 2017;27:175–83.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12595.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    • Bukowski H, Samson D. New insights into the inter-individual variability in perspective taking. Vision. 2017;1(1):8.  https://doi.org/10.3390/vision1010008. This mega-analysis of level-1 VPT performance on the Dot paradigm demonstrates that the assessment perspective-taking performance can be multidimensional by orthogonally contrasting the consistency of perspectives and the target perspective to take. An unconstrained cluster analysis revealed the existence of 4 profiles of perspecive-takers that could be distinguished only if two dimensions were considered. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bukowski H, Samson D. Can emotions influence level-1 visual perspective taking? Cogn Neurosci. 2016;7(1–4):182–91.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1043879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flavell JH, Everett BA, Croft K, Flavell ER. Young children’s knowledge about visual perception: further evidence for the level 1–level 2 distinction. Dev Psychol. 1981;17(1):99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    • Schurz M, Aichhorn M, Martin A, Perner J. Common brain areas engaged in false belief reasoning and visual perspective taking: a meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7(November):712.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00712. This coordinates-based meta-analysis of the functional neuroimaging studies investigating VPT and false belief reasoning shows a small overlap between the respective mentalizing processes that is limited to the dpPC, the left angular gyrus (posterior TPJ), and left posterior middle temporal gyrus. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    • McCleery JP, Surtees ADR, Graham KA, Richards JE, Apperly IA. The neural and cognitive time course of theory of mind. J Neurosci. 2011;31(36):12849–54.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1392-11.201. This first EEG study on the Dot paradigm revealed a modulation of a late ERP component localized on the right anterior PFC for the consistency contrast and the modulation of an earlier ERP component localized on bilateral TPJ (with right dominance) for the perspective contrast. The same TPJ component at identical time window was found in Blanke et al. (2005) in EEG and TMS experiments for the perspective contrast. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meurrens S, George A, Vandermeeren Y, Samson D. Exploring the role of the right inferior frontal gyrus in visual perspective taking using transcranial direct current stimulation. Poster presentted at the annual meeting of British Neuropsychological Society (BNS) 2016.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    •• Schurz M, Kronbichler M, Weissengruber S, Surtees A, Samson D, Perner J. Clarifying the role of theory of mind areas during visual perspective taking: issues of spontaneity and domain-specificity. NeuroImage. 2015;117:386–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.031. The study creates novel control conditions with non-social objects and thus provides convincing fMRI evidence that the other person’s perspective is implicitly computed during self-perspective trials of the Dot paradigm.
  13. 13.
    Soutschek A, Ruff CC, Strombach T, Kalenscher T, Tobler PN. Brain stimulation reveals crucial role of overcoming self-centeredness in self-control. Sci Adv. 2016;2(10):e1600992.  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600992.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    •• Beck AA, Rossion B, Samson D. An objective neural signature of rapid perspective taking. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2018;13(1):72–9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx135. This ERP study is the first fast periodic visual stimulation experiment used in the field of perspective-taking and mentalizing. Its novelty and great potential lie in the display distinct stimuli or conditions at specific frequencies to investigate the differential brain activity elicited at these specific frequencies. The differential activity for taking an avatar’s inconsistent versus consistent perspective was localized on the right prefrontal and centro-parietal electrodes, a topography congruent with the network recruited in perspective selection. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Santiesteban I, Kaur S, Bird G, Catmur C. Attentional processes, not implicit mentalizing, mediate performance in a perspective-taking task: evidence from stimulation of the temporoparietal junction. NeuroImage. 2017;155:305–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.04.055. The relevant finding of the TMS experiment was the faster RT for the self-perspective following disrupting TMS on right TPJ than on middle occipital cortex. A finding that puts into question the actual role of the right TPJ in social cognition. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schnell K, Bluschke S, Konradt B, Walter H. Functional relations of empathy and mentalizing: an fMRI study on the neural basis of cognitive empathy. NeuroImage. 2011;54(2):1743–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vogeley K, Zilles K, Vogeley K, May M, Ritzl A, Falkai P, et al. Neural correlates of first-person perspective as one constituent of human self-consciousness. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004;  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904970799.
  18. 18.
    Kaiser S, Walther S, Nennig E, Kronmüller K, Mundt C, Weisbrod M, et al. Gender-specific strategy use and neural correlates in a spatial perspective taking task. Neuropsychologia. 2008;46(10):2524–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.04.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    • Martin AK, Dzafic I, Ramdave S, Meinzer M. Causal evidence for task-specific involvement of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex in human social cognition. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017;12(8):1209–18.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx063.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sulpizio V, Committeri G, Lambrey S, Berthoz A, Galati G. Role of the human retrosplenial cortex/parieto-occipital sulcus in perspective priming. NeuroImage. 2016;125:108–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.040.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    • van Elk M, Duizer M, Sligte I, van Schie H. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the right temporoparietal junction impairs third-person perspective taking. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2017;17(1):9–23.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-016-0462-z. This tDCS study stimulated the right TPJ during a level-2 VPT task and reported slower RT than on control task specifically following excitatory stimulution. This finding is in contradiction with previous findings and several interesting interpretations are proposed. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blanke O, Mohr C, Michel CM, Pascual-Leone A, Brugger P, Seeck M, et al. Linking out-of-body experience and self processing to mental own-body imagery at the temporoparietal junction. J Neurosci. 2005;25(3):550–7.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2612-04.2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kockler H, Scheef L, Tepest R, David N, Bewernick BH, Newen A, et al. Visuospatial perspective taking in a dynamic environment: perceiving moving objects from a first-person-perspective induces a disposition to act. Conscious Cogn. 2010;19(3):690–701.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.03.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meng S, Oi M, Saito G, Saito H. The neural correlates of biomechanical constraints in hand laterality judgment task performed from other person’s perspective: a near-infrared spectroscopy study. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Conson M, Errico D, Mazzarella E, Giordano M, Grossi D, Trojano L. Transcranial electrical stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex modulates processing of social cognitive and affective information. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0126448.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126448.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mazzarella E, Ramsey R, Conson M, Hamilton A. Brain systems for visual perspective taking and action perception. Soc Neurosci. 2013;8(3):248–67.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2012.761160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    David N, Aumann C, Santos NS, Bewernick BH, Eickhoff SB, Newen A, et al. Differential involvement of the posterior temporal cortex in mentalizing but not perspective taking. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2008;3:279–89.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn023.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    David N, Bewernick BH, Cohen MX, Newen A, Lux S, Fink GR, et al. Neural representations of self versus other: visual-spatial perspective taking and agency in a virtual ball-tossing game. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006;18(6):898–910.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.6.898.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aichhorn M, Perner J, Kronbichler M, Staffen W, Ladurner G. Do visual perspective tasks need theory of mind? NeuroImage. 2006;30(3):1059–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.10.026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Agarwal SM, Shivakumar V, Kalmady SV, Danivas V, Amaresha AC, Bose A, et al. Neural correlates of a perspective-taking task using in a realistic three-dimmensional environment based task: a pilot functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2017;15(3):276–80.  https://doi.org/10.9758/cpn.2017.15.3.276.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Besharati S, Forkel SJ, Kopelman M, Solms M, Jenkinson PM, Fotopoulou A. Mentalizing the body: spatial and social cognition in anosognosia for hemiplegia. Brain. 2016;139(3):971–85.  https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awv390.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eack SM, Wojtalik JA, Keshavan MS, Minshew NJ. Social-cognitive brain function and connectivity during visual perspective-taking in autism and schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2017;183:102–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2017.03.009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vanlangendonck F. Finding common ground: on the neural mechanisms of communicative language production. Doctoral thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands 2017.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eack SM, Wojtalik JA, Newhill CE, Keshavan MS, Phillips ML. Prefrontal cortical dysfunction during visual perspective-taking in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2013;150(2–3):491–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2013.08.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dumontheil I, Küster O, Apperly IA, Blakemore SJ. Taking perspective into account in a communicative task. NeuroImage. 2010;52(4):1574–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.056.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Santiesteban I, Banissy MJJ, Catmur C, Bird G. Enhancing social ability by stimulating right temporoparietal junction. Curr Biol. 2012;22(23):2274–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.10.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    • Santiesteban I, Banissy MJ, Catmur C, Bird G. Functional lateralization of temporoparietal junction—imitation inhibition, visual perspective-taking and theory of mind. Eur J Neurosci. 2015;42(8):2527–33.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13036. This tDCS study performed anodal stimulation on the right and left TPJ and has shown an identical increase of accuracy at taking into account another person’s inconsistent visual perspective. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nobusako S, Nishi Y, Nishi Y, Shutou T, Asano D, Osumi M, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the temporoparietal junction and inferior frontal cortex improves imitation-inhibition and perspective-taking with no effect on the Autism-Spectrum Quotient score. Front Behav Neurosci. 2017;11(May):84.  https://doi.org/10.3389/FNBEH.2017.00084.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bukowski H, Lamm C. Temporoparietal junction. In: Zeigler-Hill V, Shackelford TK, editors. Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_863-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Madden DJ, Spaniol J, Whiting WL, Bucur B, Provenzale JM, Cabeza R, et al. Adult age differences in the functional neuroanatomy of visual attention: a combined fMRI and DTI study. Neurobiol Aging. 2006;28:1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2006.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Derrfuss J, Vogt VL, Fiebach CJ, Von Cramon DY, Tittgemeyer M. Functional organization of the left inferior precentral sulcus: dissociating the inferior frontal eye field and the inferior frontal junction. NeuroImage. 2012;59(4):3829–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yarkoni T, Poldrack R, Nichols T. Large-scale automated synthesis of human functional neuroimaging data. Nat Methods. 2011;8(8):665–70.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1635.Large-scale.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Margulies DS, Vincent JL, Kelly C, Lohmann G, Uddin LQ, Biswal BB, et al. Precuneus shares intrinsic functional architecture in humans and monkeys. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(47):20069–74.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905314106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cavanna AE, Trimble MR. The precuneus: a review of its functional anatomy and behavioural correlates. Brain. 2006;129(3):564–83.  https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stoodley CJ, Schmahmann JD. Functional topography in the human cerebellum: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. NeuroImage. 2009;44(2):489–501.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.08.039.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stoodley CJ, Valera EM, Schmahmann JD. Functional topography of the cerebellum for motor and cognitive tasks: an fMRI study. NeuroImage. 2012;59(2):1560–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.065.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ito M. Control of mental activities by internal models in the cerebellum. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(4):304–13.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2332.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Carter RM, Huettel SA. A nexus model of the temporal–parietal junction. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013;17(7):328–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.05.007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Corbetta M, Patel G, Shulman GL. The reorienting system of the human brain: from environment to theory of mind. Neuron. 2008;58(3):306–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Geng JJ, Vossel S. Re-evaluating the role of TPJ in attentional control: contextual updating? Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013;37(10):2608–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.08.010.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lamm C, Bukowski H, Silani G. From shared to distinct self–other representations in empathy: evidence from neurotypical function and socio-cognitive disorders. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2016;371(1686):20150083.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bukowski H, Lamm C. Superior Temporal Sulcus. In: Zeigler-Hill V, Shackelford TK, editors. Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_463-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bukowski H, Hietanen JKJK, Samson D. From gaze cueing to perspective taking: revisiting the claim that we automatically compute where or what other people are looking at. Vis Cogn. 2016;23(8):1020–42.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2015.1132804.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    • May M, Wendt M. Visual perspective taking and laterality decisions: problems and possible solutions. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7(September):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00549. This review examines in details the level-2 VPT tasks requiring laterality decision and gather evidence suggesting that the cognitive processes performed to compute another person’s visual perspective might significantly vary. Recommendations are then provided. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Perception, Reasoning, Interaction, and Reasoning Group (SPRING), Psychological Sciences Research InstituteUniversité catholique de LouvainLouvain-La-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations