Dataset Information

Reality = relevance? Insights from spontaneous modulations of the brain's default network when telling apart reality from fiction.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although human beings regularly experience fictional worlds through activities such as reading novels and watching movies, little is known about what mechanisms underlie our implicit knowledge of the distinction between reality and fiction. The first neuroimaging study to address this issue revealed that the mere exposure to contexts involving real entities compared to fictional characters led to engagement of regions in the anterior medial prefrontal and posterior cingulate cortices (amPFC, PCC). As these core regions of the brain's default network are involved during self-referential processing and autobiographical memory retrieval, it was hypothesized that real entities may be conceptually coded as being more personally relevant to us than fictional characters.

Methodology/principal findings

In the present functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, we directly test the hypothesis that entity-associated personal relevance is the critical factor underlying the differential engagement of these brain regions by comparing the brain's response when processing contexts involving family or friends (high relevance), famous people (medium relevance), or fictional characters (low relevance). In line with predictions, a gradient pattern of activation was observed such that higher entity-associated personal relevance was associated with stronger activation in the amPFC and the PCC.

Conclusions/significance

The results of the study have several important implications. Firstly, they provide informed grounds for characterizing the dynamics of reality-fiction distinction. Secondly, they provide further insights into the functions of the amPFC and the PCC. Thirdly, in view of the current debate related to the functional relevance and specificity of brain's default network, they reveal a novel approach by which the functions of this network can be further explored.

SUBMITTER: Abraham A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2648967 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Vocal identity processing depends on the ability to tell apart two instances of different speakers whilst also being able to tell together two instances of the same speaker. Whilst previous research has examined these voice processing capabilities under relatively common listening conditions, it has not yet tested the limits of these capabilities. Here, two studies are presented that employ challenging listening tasks to determine just how good we are at these voice processing tasks. In Experiment 1, 54 university students were asked to distinguish between very similar sounding, yet different speakers (celebrity targets and their impersonators). Participants completed a 'Same/Different' task and a 'Which is the Celebrity?' task to pairs of speakers, and a 'Real or Not?' task to individual speakers. In Experiment 2, a separate group of 40 university students was asked to pair very different sounding instances of the same speakers (speaking and singing). Participants were presented with an array of voice clips and completed a 'Pairs Task' as a variant of the more traditional voice sorting task. The results of Experiment 1 suggested that significantly more mistakes were made when distinguishing celebrity targets from their impersonators than when distinguishing the same targets from control voices. Nevertheless, listeners were significantly better than chance in all three tasks despite the challenge. Similarly, the results of Experiment 2 suggested that it was significantly more difficult to pair singing and speaking clips than to pair two speaking clips, particularly when the speakers were unfamiliar. Again, however, the performance was significantly above zero, and was again better than chance in a cautious comparison. Taken together, the results suggest that vocal identity processing is a highly adaptable task, assisted by familiarity with the speaker. However, the fact that performance remained above chance in all tasks suggests that we had not reached the limit of our listeners' capability, despite the considerable listening challenges introduced. We conclude that voice processing is far better than previous research might have presumed.