The Neural Representational Space of Social Memory

Interactions between neural representations of the social and spatial environment

Even in our highly interconnected modern world, geographic factors play an important role in human social connections. Similarly, social relationships influence how and where we travel, and how we think about our spatial world. Here, we review the growing body of neuroscience research that is revealing multiple interactions between social and spatial processes in both humans and non-human animals. We review research on the cognitive and neural representation of spatial and social information, and highlight recent findings suggesting that underlying mechanisms might be common to both. We discuss how spatial factors can influence social behaviour, and how social concepts modify representations of space. In so doing, this review elucidates not only how neural representations of social and spatial information interact but also similarities in how the brain represents and operates on analogous information about its social and spatial surroundings.This article is part of the theme issue 'The spatial-social interface: a theoretical and empirical integration'.

Neural similarity between mentalizing and live social interaction during the transition to adolescence

Social interactions are essential for human development, yet little neuroimaging research has examined their underlying neurocognitive mechanisms using socially interactive paradigms during childhood and adolescence. Recent neuroimaging research has revealed activity in the mentalizing network when children engage with a live social partner, even when mentalizing is not required. While this finding suggests that social‐interactive contexts may spontaneously engage mentalizing, it is not a direct test of how similarly the brain responds to these two contexts. The current study used representational similarity analysis on data from 8‐ to 14‐year‐olds who made mental and nonmental judgments about an abstract character and a live interaction partner during fMRI. A within‐subject, 2 (Mental/Nonmental) × 2 (Peer/Character) design enabled us to examine response pattern similarity between conditions, and estimate fit to three conceptual models of how the two contexts relate: (1) social interaction and mentalizing about an abstract character are represented similarly; (2) interactive peers and abstract characters are represented differently regardless of the evaluation type; and (3) mental and nonmental states are represented dissimilarly regardless of target. We found that the temporal poles represent mentalizing and peer interactions similarly (Model 1), suggesting a neurocognitive link between the two in these regions. Much of the rest of the social brain exhibits different representations of interactive peers and abstract characters (Model 2). Our findings highlight the importance of studying social‐cognitive processes using interactive approaches, and the utility of pattern‐based analyses for understanding how social‐cognitive processes relate to each other.

The Neural Representational Space of Social Memory

Social functioning involves learning about the social networks in which we live and interact; knowing not just our friends, but also who is friends with our friends. This study utilized an incidental learning paradigm and representational similarity analysis (RSA), a functional MRI multivariate pattern analysis technique, to examine the relationship between learning social networks and the brain's response to the faces within the networks. We found that accuracy of learning face pair relationships through observation is correlated with neural similarity patterns to those pairs in the left temporoparietal junction (TPJ), the left fusiform gyrus, and the subcallosal ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), all areas previously implicated in social cognition. This model was also significant in portions of the cerebellum and thalamus. These results show that the similarity of neural patterns represent how accurately we understand the closeness of any two faces within a network. Our findings indicate that these areas of the brain not only process knowledge and understanding of others, but also support learning relations between individuals in groups.