Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35931309›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2022

The role of motion in the neural representation of social interactions in the posterior temporal cortex.

Julia Landsiedel, Katie Daughters, Paul E Downing, Kami Koldewyn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. The Processing Stages for Social Interaction Recognition.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Social brain responses to natural scene images of social interactions.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Neural Representations of Observed Interpersonal Synchrony/Asynchrony in the Social Perception Network.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  17. Category-Selective Representation of Relationships in the Visual Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Seeing social interactions.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2023
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julia LandsiedelSchool of Human and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University.
Katie DaughtersDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex.
Paul E DowningSchool of Human and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University.
Kami KoldewynSchool of Human and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University. Electronic address: k.koldewyn@bangor.ac.uk.
Bangor University · GBUniversity of Essex · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans are an inherently social species, with multiple focal brain regions sensitive to various visual social cues such as faces, bodies, and biological motion. More recently, research has begun to investigate how the brain responds to more complex, naturalistic social scenes, identifying a region in the posterior superior temporal sulcus (SI-pSTS; i.e., social interaction pSTS), amongst others, as an important region for processing social interaction. This research, however, has presented images or videos, and thus the contribution of motion to social interaction perception in these brain regions is not yet understood. In the current study, 22 participants viewed videos, image sequences, scrambled image sequences and static images of either social interactions or non-social independent actions. Combining univariate and multivariate analyses, we confirm that bilateral SI-pSTS plays a central role in dynamic social interaction perception but is much less involved when 'interactiveness' is conveyed solely with static cues. Regions in the social brain, including SI-pSTS and extrastriate body area (EBA), showed sensitivity to both motion and interactive content. While SI-pSTS is somewhat more tuned to video interactions than is EBA, both bilateral SI-pSTS and EBA showed a greater response to social interactions compared to non-interactions and both regions responded more strongly to videos than static images. Indeed, both regions showed higher responses to interactions than independent actions in videos and intact sequences, but not in other conditions. Exploratory multivariate regression analyses suggest that selectivity for simple visual motion does not in itself drive interactive sensitivity in either SI-pSTS or EBA. Rather, selectivity for interactions expressed in point-light animations, and selectivity for static images of bodies, make positive and independent contributions to this effect across the LOTC region. Our results strongly suggest that EBA and SI-pSTS work together during dynamic interaction perception, at least when interactive information is conveyed primarily via body information. As such, our results are also in line with proposals of a third visual stream supporting dynamic social scene perception.

Indexed as

Brain MappingMotion PerceptionHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMotionSocial InteractionTemporal LobeExtrastriate Body AreafMRIfunctional localizationMotionSocial Interaction PerceptionSuperior Temporal Sulcus

Identifiers

PMID35931309
PMCPMC9485464
OpenAlexW4289526663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.