Debra Lindsay | 42613035 | PSYC4992 – Research Proposal 1
Vicarious Motivation: Neuropsychological basis to goal contagion
The range of vicarious experiences that people experience is diverse. Researchers have
found evidence for motor contagion[1-3], feeling vicarious physical pain[4, 5],
embarrassment[6, 7], reward[8, 9], power[10], dissonance[11], guilt[12], catching others’
emotions[13], and having self-control depleted[14] simply by witnessing another person in
these states. A large body of research has developed into the field of vicarious motivation.
Dubbed goal contagion, individuals have been found to have increased motivation to
perform a behaviour after witnessing another individual strive for the same or similar goal[15-
17]. Individuals show more goal directed behaviour, report greater intentions to pursue that
goal, and have greater accessibility to goal related concepts, all providing evidence that they
have now acquired the observed goal vicariously.
To date, the literature surrounding goal contagion has focused on priming effects; that
witnessing another person pursue a goal primes relevant goal concepts in the observer and
makes them more sensitive to goal-related stimuli. Once activated, this motivation induces
goal-relevant behaviour which in turn facilitates goal pursuit[18, 19]. Goal contagion has
been described as a separate process to semantic priming. Semantic priming involves
exposure to a word or concept resulting in similar concepts becoming more accessible for a
short period of time[20-24]. In comparison, goal contagion is reported to be more enduring
as it involves the activation of goal motivation. Studies using a delay paradigm (measuring
motivation either immediately after the goal prime or several minutes later) found that
participants were more motivated after the delay[15] revealing that goal activation is
sustained. If the effects were the result of semantic priming, however, there would be no
increased motivation after the delay, as the priming effect would have faded before the
measure of motivation took place.
The goal contagion effect has been reported across various situations such as earning
money, seeking a romantic partner, playing a game competitively versus cooperatively,
helping other people, learning information about a person, and academic study[16, 17, 25-
28]. However, the literature focuses exclusively on behavioural evidence. Claims that this
effect is created through the activation of goal-related constructs relies solely on priming
studies; an area of research that has recently sparked active debate into its validity[29, 30].
Neuropsychologists have explored some vicarious effects which does strengthen the
argument that goal contagion is a vicarious motivation state that people can experience. To
date the research has found neurological correlates for motor contagion, and vicarious
Debra Lindsay | 42613035 | PSYC4992 – Research Proposal 2
experiences of pain and emotion. A common theme across this research is the involvement
of the mirror network (MN).
The vicarious effects that have been linked via brain imaging studies to the mirror system
have looked at motor responses, somatosensory responses (touch and pain) and emotional
responses (facial expressions). This research suggests the mirror system aids in action
understanding which creates an imitation of that experience in the observer. A key difference
emerges between these imaging studies and those providing evidence for goal contagion.
The previous research into the mirror system all used depictions of individuals displaying an
action (grasping an object, making a facial expression), or an action being performed on
them (being stuck with a needle). These experiments involve scenarios that allow action
understanding to take place. However, experimental manipulations used to elicit goal
contagion typically use written vignettes or video footage of a complex series of behaviours
to describe a goal that the target is pursuing. This requires more complex interpretation to
fully understand the goal being pursued.
While researchers have argued that mirror neurons are the key to all vicarious experience,
there is also evidence that it is part of a broader network that facilitates action understanding
and other people’s experiences. The aim of this research is to explore the brain regions
implicated in goal contagion and strengthen the evidence that witnessing another individual
pursue a goal activates that goal in the observer. Based on the existing studies exploring
other vicarious effects I expect goal contagion to utilise the mirror network, the mentalising
system (MS), and the behavioural activation system (BAS). Details of these regions and their
proposed role in goal contagion are described in more detail below.
Mirror Network
The MN was first described in macaque monkeys, where single-neuron imaging studies
uncovered neurons in area F5 of the premotor cortex[2], the inferior parietal lobule[31] and
the anterior intraparietal area[2]. These mirror neurons fired when observing an action and
when performing the same (or similar) action[32, 33]. Human research located analogous
mirror neurons in the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), dorsal (DPMC) and ventral (VPMC)
premotor cortex and the inferior (IPL) and superior (SPL) parietal lobule[34].
These regions have been implicated in the execution and inhibition of actions and of spatial
attention. The IFG has also been associated with memory retrieval[35, 36] although there is
the suggestion that its role is more attentional. That is, the IFG is responsible for attending to
Debra Lindsay | 42613035 | PSYC4992 – Research Proposal 3
memories once retrieved[37]. The IFG is also reported to play a role in imitation of observed
actions[38] and action inhibition. Anatomically, the premotor cortex has projections to the
motor cortex which is responsible for generating and controlling movement[39]. Specifically it
has been associated with movement execution[39, 40]. Similar to the IFG, regions of the
VPMC have been associated with decisions of inhibition or action of behaviour[41]. Lesion
studies have also implicated the VPMC with spatial attention[42]. Single neuron analysis in
monkey’s and lesion studies in humans have revealed the IPL is implemented in spatial
understanding and attention[42-45]. Imaging studies have revealed it is associated with
prioritising attention across different spatial cues[46]. This body of research suggests that
this area is associated with spatial attention[47]. Similar to the IPL, the SPL has been
implicated in spatial attention. More specifically it may be involved in shifts of attention[48].
There is evidence that the mirror system is associated with understanding actions in terms of
goals and not just simple motor movements[49]. Both the IPL[50] and VPMC[51] have been
implicated in goal representation during observation of another individual. Understanding the
action of another person requires perceptual judgments of what the action is, and what the
aim of that action is. Studies inhibiting action in the VPMC showed a decrease in perceptual
judgement suggesting this area is critical to perceiving and interpreting action[52]. Further
research has shown that individuals are better able to understand an action when that action
occurs in a context that facilitates that understanding and this is correlated with an increased
activation in the VPMC[53]. A more recent study has shown that activation in the IPL is
correlated with action understanding in the presence of goal relevant cues, i.e. asked to
make a judgement about the meaning of the action[34].
This research suggests the MN is implicated in attending to stimuli and interpreting this in
terms of action understanding in order to infer the goals behind them. Studies into several
vicarious effects have found involvement of the mirror system and also the activation of the
network that is related to that experience. For example, motor contagion involves the MN
and regions of the motor cortex. Similarly studies into vicarious experience of pain and
emotion have found activation in the somatosensory networks and emotion networks
respectively, on top of activation of the MN. This suggests that it is the integration of the MN
and the structures involved with processing the specific stimulus that results in the vicarious
experience. In line with this research I propose that it is the integration of the MN and the
BAS that is responsible for goal contagion.
Debra Lindsay | 42613035 | PSYC4992 – Research Proposal 4
Behavioural activation system
People are motivated to approach positive states and avoid negative ones[18] as such goal
motivation is fundamentally controlled by reward outcomes. Reinforcement sensitivity theory
posits that an individuals’ ability to detect rewarding stimuli and their reaction to that stimuli is
dependent on the sensitivity of their behavioural activation system (BAS) or behavioural
inhibition system (BIS). The BAS involves brain regions that are sensitive to reward and
promote approach behaviours (i.e. moving towards a target). As all the literature into goal
contagion has focused on approach motivation goals the current research will be focused on
the BAS.
The BAS is related to the dopaminergic reward network. It incorporates the medial prefrontal
cortex (MPFC), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and the dorsal ventral striatum (DVS). Projections
from the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area have been reported to feed into
these areas and are involved in the BAS[54]. The MPFC has been associated with
developing contingency plans based on reward stimuli[55]. The OFC connects directly to the
amygdala, both of which have been heavily implicated in goal directed behaviour[56]. A 2005
meta-analysis correlated activity in the OFC with monitoring and encoding memories of
reward values and punishment evaluations[56]. This brain region receives a range of
sensory input which allows it to interpret reward in many different forms[56-58]. This
interpretation of reward values occurs both after receiving reward[59] or before as a
predictive value[60]. The striatum has also been implicated in predicting reward values[61]
and in anticipation and receipt of a reward[62, 63].
Other areas associated with reward sensitivity are the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and
the amygdala[54]. The ACC has been implicated in predicting the value of actions and
creating strategies for goal pursuit[64]. While the amygdala has been traditionally associated
with unpleasant stimuli[65] imaging studies have revealed activation upon presentation of
more positive motivational stimuli[66]. The amygdala’s role in reward sensitivity is believed to
be detecting the motivational relevance of salient stimuli, and the enhanced processing of
such stimuli if it is deemed relevant [67].
The inclusion of the dopaminergic system in the BAS underpins motivation in terms of
reward and reinforcement. The influx of dopamine in the system encourages certain
behaviours and so pushes goal pursuit onwards. There is evidence that this network can be
activated through vicarious experiences of reward[68]. Individuals playing a video game
showed activation in the striatum and the orbitomedial prefrontal cortex, both areas heavily
Debra Lindsay | 42613035 | PSYC4992 – Research Proposal 5
linked with dopamine release. Further, when they simply observed another person playing a
video game they experienced activation in the orbitomedial prefrontal cortex, but not in the
striatum[68]. The researchers concluded that while it is possible to experience vicarious
reward, it is not as strong as the first-hand experience of that reward. Similarly, Varnum et al.
(2013) suggested that vicarious reward can never be stronger or equal to first hand reward,
and that the strength of the relationship between observer and target mediates this effect[8].
While it appears that the lessened strength of vicarious reward would not motivate
behaviour, I argue that receiving any reward stimulus would motivate further pursuit of such
rewards and as such goal contagion would occur.
Mentalising System
As stated previously, the bulk of research into the MN has used experimental paradigms that
depict physical actions (e.g. a hand opening a nut), or representations of physical actions
(e.g. the sound of a nut being cracked open). While this provides some evidence that
vicarious experiences occur it is not known if the mirror system is implemented in more
complex vicarious effects, such as goal contagion. Previous studies have shown that
increased perspective taking enhances the goal contagion effect suggesting that it may not
be as automatic of a process as described. Instead, requiring the observer to consciously
“put herself in the mind” of the target. Some researchers have suggested that the mirror
system is doing just this, but others argue that it is a broader network of brain mechanisms
including those responsible for theory of mind[69, 70].
One such area is the MS. This area is involved with the conscious processing of another
person’s mental state[69, 70]. The MS includes areas in the medial frontal (MFC) and
parietal cortices (specifically the precuneus), the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ), and the
anterior temporal cortex (ATC)[71, 72]. Mainieri et al., (2013) found that the MN and the MS
both contribute to the understanding of social gestures, with the MS more active during
social gestures than non-social gestures[69]. Further researchers have suggested that, while
the MN and the MS are distinct brain networks, they interact together with the MN
responsible for understanding behaviour and the MS understanding intentions[73].
The MFC has previously been linked with reasoning other people’s beliefs and desires[74]. A
recent meta-analysis[75] suggests it is responsible for understanding social and emotional
information about others. The precuneus, located in the medial parietal cortex, has been
associated with judgements of another individuals visual perspective[76] as well as the
mental representation of visuo-spatial information (e.g. mental rotation, mental simulation of
Debra Lindsay | 42613035 | PSYC4992 – Research Proposal 6
routes)[75]. This suggests that the precuneus is responsible for taking the visual perspective
of another person. The TPJ has been associated with spatial attention[75] particularly in
reference to where the self is located within space. Studies using transcranial magnetic
stimulation of the right TPJ have resulted in impairment of belief reasoning[77]. The ATC is
responsible for storing semantic knowledge[78]. It has also been implicated in storing social
semantic scripts[79], and in interpreting contextual knowledge about social situations[75].
Aims
Given that interpreting another individuals’ goals requires more complex thought, I propose
that goal contagion would utilise the MS, in conjunction with the MN, in order to understand
the mind state of the target. This brings me the main aims of this study.
Based on previous research that reveals several vicarious experiences involve the classic
MN as well as activation in the areas specifically associated with the modality under
investigation, I propose that vicarious motivation occurs in a similar way. When participants
witness a target pursue a goal, they will experience activation in their MN as well as their
BAS. Further, as goal contagion requires a more complex understanding of the intentions of
another person, I predict that the MS will also be active when observing another person
pursue a goal. As goal contagion results in increased motivation in the observer as well,
there should be behavioural differences in motivation for those who watch a target pursue a
goal. As such, those who see an individual pursue a goal should show greater motivation on
the same task. During this phase, I expect the MN and the BAS to be active based on
previous vicarious studies implicating the mirror system in imitation of behaviour. The MS
system would not be active during this phase, as the intentions of the goal have already
been interpreted so require no further processing. I would expect the BAS to show greater
activation during the self-goal pursuit phase given the previous research showing first hand
reward is stronger than vicarious reward.
Proposed Study
The study would involve 30 healthy participants undergoing function magnetic resonance
imaging (fMRI) while observing a 5 minute video of another person pursuing a goal or a
control video (between participant design - 15 in each condition; goal or control). After a brief
distractor task, participants will then be asked to perform a similar task to the one they saw
in the video but shares the same goal (i.e. an academic goal). The goal pursuit video would
show a person sitting at a desk studying. Visual cues associated with studying will be
Debra Lindsay | 42613035 | PSYC4992 – Research Proposal 7
present (e.g. text books, notepaper, highlighter pens). Similar academic goals have been
used to elicit goal motivation in the past[28]. The control video would show the same person
at the desk but drinking a cup of coffee calmly. The same visual cues would be retained so
only the persons’ goal related actions would be different. A baseline video would also be
included for all participants showing just the person sitting at the desk not doing anything to
control for activation caused by movement.
Measurements would be activations in the regions of interest: The MN (inferior frontal gyrus,
dorsal and ventral premotor cortex, inferior and superior parietal lobule), the MS (medial
frontal cortex, precuneus, temporo-parietal junction, anterior temporal cortex), and the BAS
(medial prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, dorsal ventral striatum, anterior cingulate
cortex, amygdala). Motivation will be measured by performance on an academic word task.
Performance will be measured by number of items attempted and length of time participant
persists at the task. Both of these behavioural measures have been used to measure
motivation on similar tasks[15, 25, 28, 80, 81].
Conclusion
The findings of this study will help to develop the literature surrounding both goal contagion
and vicarious effects implicating the MN. To date there have been no studies investigating
the brain regions associated with goal contagion. Given the controversy arising around
priming studies it is important to provide this level of analysis to strengthen the claims social
psychologists have made. There is also a need to develop the literature in terms of complex
vicarious effects and how they occur in terms of brain networks. While some researchers
argue that the MN is sufficient to explain these effects, few studies explore them deeply. This
study will expand the literature in this area and allow further investigation into complex
vicarious effects.
Debra Lindsay | 42613035 | PSYC4992 – Research Proposal 8
References
1. Bouquet, C.A., et al., Goal-directed actions are more contagious than non-goal-directed
actions. Experimental Psychology, 2010. 58(1): p. 71-78.
2. Rizzolatti, G. and C. Sinigaglia, The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit:
interpretations and misinterpretations. Nature Reviews, 2010. 11: p. 264-274.
3. Avenanti, A., M. Candidi, and C. Urgesi, Vicarious motor activation during action perception:
beyond correlational evidence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2013. 7.
4. Bernhardt, B.C. and T. Singer, The neural basis of empathy. The Annual Review of
Neuroscience, 2012. 35: p. 1-23.
5. Decety, J., Dissecting the neural mechanisms mediating empathy. Emotion Review, 2011.
3(92).
6. Müller-Pinzler, L., et al., Increased autonomic activation in vicarious embarrassment.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2012. 96: p. 74-82.
7. Thompson, T., Personal and vicarious embarrassability: Common and unique personality
correlates. Journal of Individual Differences, 2014. 35(1): p. 22-29.
8. Varnum, M.E.W., et al., When “Your” reward is the same as “My” reward: Self-construal
priming shifts neural responses to own vs. friends' rewards. NeuroImage, 2014. 87: p. 164-
169.
9. Mobbs, D., et al., A Key Role for Similarity in Vicarious Reward. Science, 2009. 324.
10. Goldstein, N.J. and N.A. Hays, Illusory power transference: The vicarious experience of
power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2011. 56: p. 593-621.
11. Norton, M.I., et al., Vicarious dissonance: Attitude change from the inconsistency of others.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003. 85(1): p. 47-62.
12. Lickel, B., et al., Vicarious shame and guilt. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2005.
8(2): p. 145-157.
13. Paulus, F.M., et al., On the distinction of empathic and vicarious emotions. Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 2013. 7.
14. Ackerman, J.M., et al., You wear me out: The vicarious depletion of self-control.
Psychological Science, 2009. 20: p. 326-332.
15. Aarts, H., P.M. Gollwitzer, and R.R. Hassin, Goal Contagion: Perceiving Is for Pursuing.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004. 87(1): p. 23-37.
16. Loersch, C., et al., The influence of social groups on goal contagion. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 2008. 44: p. 1555-1558.
17. Palomares, N.A., When and how goals are contagious in social interaction. Human
Communication Research, 2013. 39: p. 74-100.
18. Fishbach, A. and M.J. Ferguson, The goal construct in social psychology, in Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.), A.W. Kruglanski and E.T. Higgins,
Editors. 2007, Guilford Press: New York, NY, US. p. 490-515.
19. Norman, D.A., Categorization of action slips. Psychological Review, 1981. 88(1): p. 1-15.
20. Atkinson, J.W. and D. Birch, A dynamic theory of action. 1970, New York Wiley.
21. Bargh, J.A., et al., The Automated Will: Nonconscious Activation and Pursuit of Behavioral
Goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001. 81(6): p. 1014-1027.
22. Chartrand, T.L. and J.A. Bargh, Automatic activation of impression formation and
memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task
instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996. 71(3): p. 464-478.
23. Higgins, E.T., Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience, in Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles. 1996, Guilford Press: New York, NY, US.
24. Wyer, R.S. and T.K. Srull, Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 1986.
93(3): p. 322-359.
25. Aarts, H., et al., Social stereotypes and automatic goal pursuit. Social Cognition, 2005. 23(6):
p. 465-490.
26. Dik, G. and H. Aarts, Behavioral cues to others’ motivation and goal pursuits: The perception
of eVort facilitates goal inference and contagion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
2007. 43(5): p. 727-737.
27. Jia, L., E.M.W. Tong, and L.N. Lee, Psychological “gel” to bind individuals’ goal pursuit:
Gratitude facilitates goal contagion. Emotion, 2014. 14(4): p. 748-760.
28. Leander, N.P. and J.Y. Shah, For whom the goals loom: Context-driven goal contagion.
Social Cognition, 2013. 31(2): p. 187-200.
Debra Lindsay | 42613035 | PSYC4992 – Research Proposal 9
29. Klein, O., et al., Low hopes, high expectations: Expectancy effects and the replicability of
behavioral experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2012. 2012(7).
30. Newell, B.R. and D.R. Shanks, Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2014. 37: p. 1-61.
31. S, R., et al., Functional organization of inferior parietal lobule convexity in the macaque
monkey: electrophysiological characterization of motor, sensory and mirror responses and
their correlation with cytoarchitectonic areas. European Journal of Neuroscience, 2008. 28: p.
1569-1588.
32. Vittorio, G., et al., Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 1996. 119: p. 593-609.
33. Rizzolatti, G., et al., Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor action. Cognitive Brain
Research, 1996. 3: p. 131-141.
34. Molenberghs, P., et al., Activation patterns during action observation are modulated by
context in mirror system areas. NeuroImage, 2012. 59: p. 608-615.
35. Svoboda, E., M. McKinnon, and B. Levine, The functional neuroanatomy of autobiographical
memory: a meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia, 2006. 44: p. 2189-2208.
36. Wagner, A., et al., Parietal lobe contributions to episodic memory retrieval. Trends in
Cognitive Science, 2005. 9: p. 445-453.
37. Kim, H., A dual-subsystem model of the brain's default network: Self-referential processing,
memory retrieval processes, and autobiographical memory retrieval. NeuroImage, 2012. 61:
p. 966-977.
38. Molnar-Szakacs, I., et al., Observing complex action sequences: the role of the fronto-parietal
mirror neuron system. NeuroImage, 2006. 33: p. 923-935.
39. Picard, N. and P.L. Strick, Imaging the premotor areas. Current Opinions in Neurobiology,
2001. 11(663-372).
40. Fink, G.R., et al., Multiple nonprimary motor areas in the human cortex. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 1997. 77: p. 2164-2174.
41. Carter, C.S., et al., Parsing executive processes: strategic vs. evaluative functions of the
anterior cingulate cortex. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 2000. 97: p. 1944-1948.
42. Vallar, G., et al., Cerebral correlates of visuospatial neglect: A direct cerebral stimulation
study. Human Brain Mapping, 2014. 35: p. 1334-1350.
43. Molenberghs, P., M.V. Sale, and J.B. Mattingley, Is there a critical lesion site for unilateral
spatial neglect? A meta-analysis using activation likelihood estimation. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 2012. 6: p. 1-10.
44. Gillebert, C.R., et al., Lesion evidence for the critical role of the intraparietal sulcus in spatial
attention. Brain, 2001. 134: p. 1694-1709.
45. Sakata, H., et al., The parietal association cortex in depth perception and visual control of
hand action, in Annual Meeting of the European Neuroscience Association1996.
46. Vandenberghe, R. and C. R.Gillebert, Dissociations between spatial-attention processes
within parietal cortex: insights from hybrid spatial cueing and change detection paradigms.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2013. 7: p. 1-11.
47. Gillebert, C.R., et al., Lesion evidence for the critical role of the intraparietal sulcus in spatial
attention. Brain, 2011. 134: p. 1694-1709.
48. Vandenberghe, R., P. Molenberghs, and C.R. Gillebert, Spatial attention deficits in humans:
The critical role of superior compared to inferior parietal lesions. Neuropsychologia, 2012. 50:
p. 1092-1103.
49. Molenberghs, P., R. Cunnington, and J.B. Mattingley, Brain regions with mirror properties: A
meta-analysis of 125 human fMRI studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 2012.
36: p. 341-349.
50. Hamilton, A.F.C. and S.T. Grafton, Action outcomes are represented in human inferior
frontoparietal cortex. Cerebal Cortex, 2008. 18: p. 1160-1168.
51. Lestou, V., F.E. Pollick, and Z. Kourtzi, Neural substrates for action understanding at different
description levels in the human brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2008. 20(2): p. 324-
341.
52. Pobric, G. and A. Hamilton, Action Understanding Requires the Left Inferior Frontal Cortex.
Current Biology, 2006. 16: p. 524-529.
53. Iacoboni, M., et al., Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror neuron system.
PLOS Biology, 2005. 3(3).
54. Spielberg, J.M., et al., A brain network instantiating approach and avoidance motivation.
Psychophysiology, 2012. 49: p. 1200-1214.
Debra Lindsay | 42613035 | PSYC4992 – Research Proposal 10
55. Kennerley, S.W. and M.E. Walton, Decision making and reward in frontal cortex:
Complementary evidence from neurophysiological and neuropsychological studies.
Behavioral Neuroscience, 2011. 125(3): p. 297-317.
56. Kringelbach, M.L., The human orbitofrontal cortex: Linking reward to hedonic experience.
Nature Reviews, 2005. 6: p. 691-702.
57. Frey, S., P. Kostopoulos, and M. Petrides, Orbitofrontal involvement in the processing of
unpleasant auditory information. European Journal of Neuroscience, 2000. 12: p. 3709-3712.
58. Rolls, E.T.e.a., Representations of pleasant and painful touch in the human orbitofrontal and
cingulate cortices. Cerebal Cortex, 2003. 13: p. 308-317.
59. Rolls, B.J., et al., Sensory specific satiety in man. Physiological Behavior, 1981. 27: p. 137-
142.
60. Schultz, W. and A. Dickinson, Neuronal coding of prediction errors. Annual Review of
Neuroscience, 2000. 24: p. 473-500.
61. McClure, S.M., M.K. York, and P.R. Montague, The neural substrates of reward processing in
humans: the modern role of FMRI. Neuroscientist, 2004. 10: p. 260-268.
62. Hahn, T., et al., Neural response to reward anticipation is modulated by Gray's impulsivity.
NeuroImage, 2009. 46: p. 1148-1153.
63. Simon, J.J., et al., Neural reward processing is modulated by approach- and avoidance-
related personality traits. NeuroImage, 2010. 49(1868-1874).
64. Rushworth, M. and T. Behrens, Choice, uncertainty and value in prefrontal and cingulate
cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2008. 11(389-397).
65. Pessoa, L. and R. Adolphs, Emotion processing and the amygdala: From a “low road” to
“many roads” of evaluating biological significance. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2010. 11:
p. 773-782.
66. Holland, P.C. and M. Gallagher, Amygdala-frontal interactions and reward expectancy.
Current Opinions in Neurobiology, 2004. 14: p. 148-155.
67. Spielberg, J.M., et al., Trait motivation moderates neural activation associated with goal
pursuit. Cognition Affect Behaviour Neuroscience, 2012. 12: p. 308-322.
68. Kätsyri, J., et al., Just watching the game ain’t enough: striatal fMRI reward responses to
successes and failures in a video game during active and vicarious playing. Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 2013. 7.
69. Mainieri, A.G., et al., Differential role of the Mentalizing and the Mirror Neuron system in the
imitation of communicative gestures. NeuroImage, 2013. 81: p. 294-305.
70. Rameson, L.T., S.A. Morelli, and M.D. Lieberman, The neural correlates of empathy:
Experience, automaticity, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2011.
24(1): p. 235-245.
71. Overwalle, F.V. and K. Baetens, Understanding others' actions and goals by mirror and
mentalizing systems: A meta-analysis. NeuroImage, 2009. 48: p. 564-584.
72. Frith, C.D. and U. Frith, The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron, 2006. 50: p. 531-534.
73. Chiavarino, C., I.A. Apperly, and G.W. Humphreys, Understanding Intentions: Distinct
Processes for Mirroring, Representing, and Conceptualizing. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 2012. 21: p. 284-290.
74. Frith, C.D. and U. Frith, The biological basis of social interaction. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 2001. 10: p. 151-155.
75. Schurza, M., et al., Fractionating theory of mind: A meta-analysis of functional brain imaging
studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 2014. 42: p. 9-34.
76. Vogeley, K., et al, Mind reading: neural mechanism of hteory of mind and self-perspective.
NeuroImage, 2001. 14: p. 170-181.
77. Young, L., et al., Damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex impairs judgment of harmful
intent. Neuron, 2010. 65: p. 845-851.
78. Lambon Ralph, M.A. and K. Patterson, Generalization and differentiationin semantic memory:
Insights from semantic dementia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2008. 1124:
p. 61-76.
79. Gallagher, H.L. and C.D. Frith, Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’. Trends in Cognitive
Science, 2003. 7: p. 77-83.
80. Forster, J., N. Liberman, and E.T. Higgins, Accessibility from active and fulfilled goals. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 2005. 41: p. 220-239.
81. Johnson, C.S. and D.A. Stapel, No Pain, No Gain: The Conditions Under Which Upward
Comparisons Lead to Better Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
2007. 92(6): p. 1051-1067.
