Literature DB >> 18072236

Functional neuroimaging of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.

Sam Harris1, Sameer A Sheth, Mark S Cohen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The difference between believing and disbelieving a proposition is one of the most potent regulators of human behavior and emotion. When one accepts a statement as true, it becomes the basis for further thought and action; rejected as false, it remains a string of words. The purpose of this study was to differentiate belief, disbelief, and uncertainty at the level of the brain.
METHODS: We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the brains of 14 adults while they judged written statements to be "true" (belief), "false" (disbelief), or "undecidable" (uncertainty). To characterize belief, disbelief, and uncertainty in a content-independent manner, we included statements from a wide range of categories: autobiographical, mathematical, geographical, religious, ethical, semantic, and factual.
RESULTS: The states of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty differentially activated distinct regions of the prefrontal and parietal cortices, as well as the basal ganglia.
INTERPRETATION: Belief and disbelief differ from uncertainty in that both provide information that can subsequently inform behavior and emotion. The mechanism underlying this difference appears to involve the anterior cingulate cortex and the caudate. Although many areas of higher cognition are likely involved in assessing the truth-value of linguistic propositions, the final acceptance of a statement as "true" or its rejection as "false" appears to rely on more primitive, hedonic processing in the medial prefrontal cortex and the anterior insula. Truth may be beauty, and beauty truth, in more than a metaphorical sense, and false propositions may actually disgust us.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18072236     DOI: 10.1002/ana.21301

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Neurol        ISSN: 0364-5134            Impact factor:   10.422


  26 in total

1.  Ascribing beliefs to ingroup and outgroup political candidates: neural correlates of perspective-taking, issue importance and days until the election.

Authors:  Emily B Falk; Robert P Spunt; Matthew D Lieberman
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Performance comparison of machine learning algorithms and number of independent components used in fMRI decoding of belief vs. disbelief.

Authors:  P K Douglas; Sam Harris; Alan Yuille; Mark S Cohen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 6.556

3.  Religion, evolution, and mental health: attachment theory and ETAS theory.

Authors:  Kevin J Flannelly; Kathleen Galek
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2009-03-17

4.  What Makes You So Sure? Dogmatism, Fundamentalism, Analytic Thinking, Perspective Taking and Moral Concern in the Religious and Nonreligious.

Authors:  Jared Parker Friedman; Anthony Ian Jack
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2018-02

5.  Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, and the human prefrontal cortex.

Authors:  Erik Asp; Kanchna Ramchandran; Daniel Tranel
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  2012-05-21       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  The neural correlates of religious and nonreligious belief.

Authors:  Sam Harris; Jonas T Kaplan; Ashley Curiel; Susan Y Bookheimer; Marco Iacoboni; Mark S Cohen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Interoception in anxiety and depression.

Authors:  Martin P Paulus; Murray B Stein
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 3.270

8.  Beliefs about God, psychiatric symptoms, and evolutionary psychiatry.

Authors:  Kevin J Flannelly; Kathleen Galek; Christopher G Ellison; Harold G Koenig
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2010-06

9.  Belief in life-after-death, beliefs about the world, and psychiatric symptoms.

Authors:  Kevin J Flannelly; Christopher G Ellison; Kathleen Galek; Nava R Silton
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2012-09

10.  Neural basis of moral verdict and moral deliberation.

Authors:  Jana Schaich Borg; Walter Sinnott-Armstrong; Vince D Calhoun; Kent A Kiehl
Journal:  Soc Neurosci       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 2.083

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.