FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2006241383> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2006241383 endingPage "283" @default.
• W2006241383 startingPage "273" @default.
• W2006241383 abstract "Social hierarchies guide behavior in many species, including humans, where status also has an enormous impact on motivation and health. However, little is known about the underlying neural representation of social hierarchies in humans. In the present study, we identify dissociable neural responses to perceived social rank using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in an interactive, simulated social context. In both stable and unstable social hierarchies, viewing a superior individual differentially engaged perceptual-attentional, saliency, and cognitive systems, notably dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In the unstable hierarchy setting, additional regions related to emotional processing (amygdala), social cognition (medial prefrontal cortex), and behavioral readiness were recruited. Furthermore, social hierarchical consequences of performance were neurally dissociable and of comparable salience to monetary reward, providing a neural basis for the high motivational value of status. Our results identify neural mechanisms that may mediate the enormous influence of social status on human behavior and health. Social hierarchies guide behavior in many species, including humans, where status also has an enormous impact on motivation and health. However, little is known about the underlying neural representation of social hierarchies in humans. In the present study, we identify dissociable neural responses to perceived social rank using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in an interactive, simulated social context. In both stable and unstable social hierarchies, viewing a superior individual differentially engaged perceptual-attentional, saliency, and cognitive systems, notably dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In the unstable hierarchy setting, additional regions related to emotional processing (amygdala), social cognition (medial prefrontal cortex), and behavioral readiness were recruited. Furthermore, social hierarchical consequences of performance were neurally dissociable and of comparable salience to monetary reward, providing a neural basis for the high motivational value of status. Our results identify neural mechanisms that may mediate the enormous influence of social status on human behavior and health. Human social hierarchies are prominent in different domestic, professional, and recreational settings, where they define implicit expectations and action dispositions that drive appropriate social behavior (Cummins, 2000Cummins D.D. How the social environment shaped the evolution of mind.Synthese. 2000; 122: 3-28Crossref Scopus (48) Google Scholar). Furthermore, in humans, social status strongly predicts well-being, morbidity, and even survival (Boyce, 2004Boyce W.T. Social stratification, health, and violence in the very young.Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. 2004; 1036: 47-68Crossref PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar, Sapolsky, 2004Sapolsky R.M. Social status and health in humans and other animals.Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2004; 33: 393-418Crossref Scopus (425) Google Scholar, Sapolsky, 2005Sapolsky R.M. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health.Science. 2005; 308: 648-652Crossref PubMed Scopus (1161) Google Scholar). Festinger's long-standing, prominent theory of social comparison processes (Festinger, 1954Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes.Hum. Relat. 1954; 7: 117-140Crossref Scopus (9824) Google Scholar) suggests an important role for hierarchical rank in achieving accurate self-knowledge and self-improvement, particularly in the usage of upward social comparisons, i.e., comparisons between oneself and an individual of higher status (Wheeler, 1966Wheeler L. Motivation as a determinant of upward comparison.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1966; 2: 27-31Crossref Scopus (219) Google Scholar). Social hierarchies spontaneously and stably emerge in children as young as 2 years (Boyce, 2004Boyce W.T. Social stratification, health, and violence in the very young.Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. 2004; 1036: 47-68Crossref PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar, Cummins, 2000Cummins D.D. How the social environment shaped the evolution of mind.Synthese. 2000; 122: 3-28Crossref Scopus (48) Google Scholar). Status within a social hierarchy is often made explicit (e.g., via uniforms, honorifics, verbal assignment, or even in some languages via status-specific grammar [Pork, 1991Pork M.-R. Conflict avoidance in social interaction: A sociolinguistic comparison of the Korean and Japanese honorific systems.in: Hoji H. Japanese/Korean Linguistics. Vol. 1. CSLI Publications, Stanford1991Google Scholar]), but it can also be inferred from cues such as facial features, height, gender, age, and dress (Karafin et al., 2004Karafin M.S. Tranel D. Adolphs R. Dominance attributions following damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2004; 16: 1796-1804Crossref PubMed Scopus (58) Google Scholar). In humans, dominance has been linked to heritable personality traits (Mehrabian, 1996Mehrabian A. Pleasure-arousal-dominance: A general framework for describing and measuring individual differences in temperament.Curr. Psychol. 1996; 14: 261-292Crossref Scopus (370) Google Scholar); furthermore, superior status interacts with multiple neurotransmitter (Moskowitz et al., 2001Moskowitz D.S. Pinard G. Zuroff D.C. Annable L. Young S.N. The effect of tryptophan on social interaction in everyday life: a placebo-controlled study.Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001; 25: 277-289Crossref PubMed Scopus (117) Google Scholar) and neuroendocrine (Sapolsky, 2005Sapolsky R.M. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health.Science. 2005; 308: 648-652Crossref PubMed Scopus (1161) Google Scholar) systems and can be automatically and efficiently inferred (Moors and De Houwer, 2005Moors A. De Houwer J. Automatic processing of dominance and submissiveness.Exp. Psychol. 2005; 52: 296-302Crossref PubMed Scopus (32) Google Scholar), indicating the existence of biological systems that process social rank information; yet, virtually nothing is known about the neural representations of social hierarchies in humans. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the neural mechanisms that process social superiority and inferiority in humans. In human beings, social hierarchies can be established along various dimensions; we can be ranked according to ability or skill, as well as economic, physical, and professional standings. Here, in two experiments, we created an explicit and strongly reinforced social hierarchy based on incidental skill in the context of an interactive game (Figure 1). Participants performed a simple task for monetary reward simultaneously with one of two other players, alternatively, represented by photographs. Covertly, outcomes were fixed, and the two other players were simulated; behavioral measures (Figures S1 and S2, available online), however, confirmed that participants strongly engaged in this virtual social interaction. Just prior to the scanning session, in an initial test run, a social hierarchy was created by identifying the performance of one other player as better (“three star player”) and one other player as worse (“one star player”) than the participant (“two star player”). The star system, inspired by military rank symbols, continually reinforced the hierarchy by being displayed throughout the session. Implicit cues related to social superiority (e.g., age, gender, race, facial expression) were controlled. Importantly, participants played simultaneously with the other (simulated) players, but they did not play against each other. As such, outcomes and reward did not depend on the other player, who remained entirely inconsequential to the performed task and could have been completely ignored by a “rational” participant. The explicitly noncompetitive nature of the game ensured that the hierarchical status of the other player had no real or perceived impact on reward expectancy and task difficulty. Yet despite the game being noncompetitive with the other players, participants were strongly engaged in the hierarchical context, as is evident by postsession questionnaire data (Figures S1 and S2). In the first experiment (Figure 1A), we established a “stable hierarchy,” i.e., social rank positions were explicitly fixed initially and did not change throughout the experiment. We predicted differential neural responses related to processing the relative status of the other players. In a second experiment (Figure 1B), we created an “unstable hierarchy” setting by occasionally updating players' positions in the social hierarchy based on performance throughout the session. We expected to replicate our previous results from Experiment #1 regarding the neural representation of social status, but focused our primary interest on brain regions differentially active only in an unstable hierarchy setting. Moreover, we would now be able to examine the neural processing of outcomes that have a potential impact on relative social status. Finally, we examined the social specificity of our results through a nonsocial version of this experimental paradigm in which the (simulated) human players were replaced with computers. In the first experiment, the fMRI analysis revealed several brain regions differentially activated by viewing another individual of a particular relative status. Specifically, activity in the bilateral occipital/parietal cortex, ventral striatum, parahippocampal cortex, and dorsoateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) was significantly (p < 0.005, FDR-corrected) greater when viewing the more superior player compared with viewing the more inferior player (“superior player > inferior player”) relative to the participant in the interactive game (Figure 2 and Table 1). No brain regions were significantly (p < 0.05; FDR-corrected) more activated by viewing the inferior player compared with viewing the superior player (“inferior player > superior player”); while the aforementioned brain regions were significantly activated by viewing an inferior player relative to the implicit baseline (i.e., that part of measured blood oxygenation level-dependent [BOLD] response not accounted for by the modeled task-related activity), this activation was less than that for superior players (Figure 2B).Table 1Significantly Activated (p < 0.005, FDR-Corrected) Brain Regions for the Contrast, ‘Superior Player > Inferior Player’Brain RegionsBACluster Size (voxels)Peak MNI CoordinatesPeak Z ScorexyzStable Hierarchy: Experiment #1 R inferior parietal gyrus, incl.7/401341bCluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected.36,−57,486.76 R inferior/middle occipital gyrus18/1942,−81,−66.16 L inferior/middle occipital gyrus18/19709bCluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected.−24,−96,96.31 R precuneus759bCluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected.6,−57,394.54 R inferior/middle frontal gyrus (DLPFC)9/4646542,30,214.50 L inferior/middle frontal gyrus (DLPFC)9133−36,3,424.48 R parahippocampal gyrus7027,−24,−123.71 L parahippocampal gyrus53−21,−27,−94.14 R ventral striatum, incl.936,18,−33.99 L ventral striatum−3,15,−63.72 L middle temporal gyrus2152−57,−51,−63.95Unstable Hierarchy: Experiment #2 R inferior/middle occipital gyrus, incl.18/19847bCluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected.36,−93,37.03 L inferior/middle occipital gyrus18/19−27,−93,65.83 R inferior frontal gyrus (DLPFC)954bCluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected.45,9,275.46 R thalamus, incl.207bCluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected.6,−18,65.34 L thalamus−6,−18,154.68 R parahippocampal gyrus81bCluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected.27,−21,−155.23 L parahippocampal gyrus77bCluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected.−24,−27,−125.01 L precentral gyrus, incl.4/661bCluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected.−39,−21,665.15 L postcentral gyrus1/2/3−51,−24,574.59 R ventral striatum53bCluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected.9,9,−34.78 L fusiform3724bCluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected.−27,−63,−184.81 R fusiform3723bCluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected.45,−48,−184.57 R amygdala26aCluster defined using p < 0.001, FDR-corrected.24,−3,−214.34 posterior cingulate23/2931aCluster defined using p < 0.001, FDR-corrected.3,−42,214.25 medial prefrontal cortex9/10586,60,303.78 R superior parietal lobule7/405739,−51,663.63 supplementary motor area6643,−27,603.61 L posterior insula1361−45,−18,123.57L, left hemisphere; R, right hemisphere; MNI, Montreal Neurological Institute; BA, Brodmann area; DLPFC, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Italics indicate regions uniquely activated in Experiment #2.a Cluster defined using p < 0.001, FDR-corrected.b Cluster defined using p < 0.0005, FDR-corrected. Open table in a new tab L, left hemisphere; R, right hemisphere; MNI, Montreal Neurological Institute; BA, Brodmann area; DLPFC, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Italics indicate regions uniquely activated in Experiment #2. The fMRI results from Experiment #1 were replicated in Experiment #2. As when the hierarchy was stable, no brain regions were significantly (p < 0.05; FDR-corrected) more activated by viewing the inferior player as compared with the superior player (“inferior player > superior player”) in the unstable hierarchy setting; however, brain activity when viewing a more superior player, compared with viewing a more inferior player (“superior player > inferior player”), in the unstable hierarchy setting was again significantly greater in occipital/parietal cortex, ventral striatum, parahippocampal cortex, and DLPFC (Figure 3, Figure S3, and Table 1). In addition, several brain areas were uniquely recruited in the unstable hierarchy setting (Table 1, italic text). When viewing a superior player as compared with an inferior one, significant (p < 0.005; FDR-corrected) activations were also found in the bilateral thalamus, right amygdala, posterior cingulate, medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), primary motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, and supplementary motor area (SMA). Furthermore, we observed significant positive correlations (p < 0.05; two-tailed; Pearson's correlation) between the resultant activity in the thalamus (p = 0.011; r = 0.510), amygdala (p = 0.017; r = 0.481), and posterior cingulate (p = 0.018; r = 0.478) and the level of positive affect experienced by participants when in the top hierarchical position as assessed in postsession questionnaires (Figure 4). In Experiment #2, we also investigated the neural responses to various outcomes of interest (Table 2). Critically, we found that only outcomes with hierarchical value—that is, outcomes that potentially impact the participant's status relative to that of the other players (Figure S4)—elicited significant brain responses after controlling for reward (subject won or lost) and the status of the other player in the round (superior or inferior). Specifically, in response to an outcome of negative hierarchical value associated with performing worse than an inferior individual compared to the control outcome (“subject lost/inferior won > subject lost/inferior lost”) (Figure 5A; Table 2), significantly greater (p < 0.05; FDR-corrected) brain activity was observed in the bilateral occipital/parietal cortex, ventral striatum, midbrain/thalamus, and anterior insula. Our data demonstrated a significant positive correlation (p < 0.05; two-tailed, Pearson's correlation) between the level of positive affect experienced by the participant when he or she was in the top hierarchical position, and the resultant activity in the insula (p = 0.030; r = 0.444) and ventral striatum (p = 0.008; r = 0.528) associated with performing worse than the inferior player (Figure 5A). Conversely, a number of regions were significantly differentially activated (p < 0.05; FDR-corrected) by an outcome of positive hierarchical value associated with performing better than the superior player compared to the control condition (“subject won/superior lost > subject won/superior won”) (Figure 5B and Table 2), notably in the dorsal striatum, midbrain/thalamus, MPFC, dorsal premotor cortex, and pre-SMA. We observed significant negative correlations (p < 0.05; two-tailed; Pearson's correlation) between individual scores on the Trait Dominance-Submissiveness Scale (TDS) (Mehrabian, 1996Mehrabian A. Pleasure-arousal-dominance: A general framework for describing and measuring individual differences in temperament.Curr. Psychol. 1996; 14: 261-292Crossref Scopus (370) Google Scholar) and activity in premotor cortex (p = 0.04; r = −0.453) associated with performing better than the superior player (Figure 5B). Nonhierarchical valuable outcome contrasts (“subject lost/superior won > subject lost/superior lost” and “subject won/inferior lost > subject won/inferior won”) did not reveal any significant (p < 0.05; FDR-corrected) activations.Table 2Significantly Activated (p < 0.05, FDR-Corrected) Brain Regions during Specific Outcome Phases in Experiment #2Brain RegionsBACluster Size (voxels)Peak MNI CoordinatesPeak Z ScorexyzSub Lost/Inf Won > Sub Lost/Inf Lost R inferior/middle occipital gyrus18/194733,−87,94.40 L inferior/middle occipital gyrus18/1942−36,−90,−64.14 L ventral striatum, incl.127aCluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.−6,6,−34.11 R ventral striatum9,9,−34.01 midbrain, incl.143aCluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.−3,−30,−124.09 thalamus−6,−24,93.67 R inferior parietal lobule4022aCluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.39,−48,483.94 R fusiform3749aCluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.48,−60,−123.88 L anterior insula1365aCluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.−42,15,−63.77 R anterior insula1352aCluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.36,24,63.33Sub Lost/Sup Won > Sub Lost/Sup LostcNo significant activations (p < 0.05, FDR-corrected).Sub Won/Sup Lost > Sub Won/Sup Won pre-supplementary motor area6153bCluster defined using p < 0.02, FDR-corrected.3,9,635.14 R precuneus7172bCluster defined using p < 0.02, FDR-corrected.21,−87,425.10 L precuneus734bCluster defined using p < 0.02, FDR-corrected.−9,−81,454.17 L precuneus7/1938bCluster defined using p < 0.02, FDR-corrected.−24,−78,333.95 R inferior/middle occipital gyrus18/1954bCluster defined using p < 0.02, FDR-corrected.45,−84,−64.58 L middle occipital gyrus1924bCluster defined using p < 0.02, FDR-corrected.−48,−72,04.07 R inferior frontal/orbitofrontal4739bCluster defined using p < 0.02, FDR-corrected.33,21,−184.38 medial prefrontal cortex630bCluster defined using p < 0.02, FDR-corrected.3,42,394.06 R middle frontal gyrus (DPMC)650bCluster defined using p < 0.02, FDR-corrected.45,0,423.96 L middle frontal gyrus (DPMC)6432−39,−6,573.93 anterior cingulate3229bCluster defined using p < 0.02, FDR-corrected.9,42,183.84 L caudate26−6,6,93.98 L fusiform3722−36,−63,−183.88 R midbrain, incl.1549,−24,−63.81 R thalamus12,−18,63.68 L midbrain, incl.135−3,−21,−213.86 L thalamus−9,−21,93.57Sub Won/Inf Lost > Sub Won/Inf WoncNo significant activations (p < 0.05, FDR-corrected).L, left hemisphere; R, right hemisphere; MNI, Montreal Neurological Institute; BA, Brodmann area; DPMC, dorsal premotor cortex; sub, subject; inf, inferior player; sup, superior player.a Cluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.b Cluster defined using p < 0.02, FDR-corrected.c No significant activations (p < 0.05, FDR-corrected). Open table in a new tab L, left hemisphere; R, right hemisphere; MNI, Montreal Neurological Institute; BA, Brodmann area; DPMC, dorsal premotor cortex; sub, subject; inf, inferior player; sup, superior player. In order to assess the social specificity of the results from Experiment #2, we employed a nonsocial version of the experimental paradigm in which the other human players were replaced with two computers (Supplemental Methods)—a common method used in social cognition investigations (e.g., Spitzer et al., 2007Spitzer M. Fischbacher U. Herrnberger B. Gron G. Fehr E. The neural signature of social norm compliance.Neuron. 2007; 56: 185-196Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (351) Google Scholar). The fMRI results from the nonsocial control experiment are displayed in Table 3. In several regions, viewing a superior compared with an inferior other player in the nonsocial paradigm elicited significant activations (p < 0.05, FDR-corrected), which, although less extensive, were similar to some of those resulting in the social paradigm, namely those in the occipital cortex, ventral striatum, parahippocampal cortex, sensorimotor cortex, and SMA. These common activations, therefore, could not be exclusively attributed to the social nature of the task (although we cannot exclude that anthropomorphization of the computer players could have contributed to the overlap). However, several unique activations in other regions clearly distinguished the social paradigm from the nonsocial paradigm. Specifically, viewing a superior player compared with an inferior player activated the DLPFC, amygdala, thalamus, posterior cingulate, and MPFC in the social setting only; these regions were not significantly activated (p > 0.05, FDR-corrected) in the nonsocial task. Furthermore, all of the aforementioned activations following hierarchical valuable outcomes compared with their control outcome conditions were social specific, with the exception of activity in the occipital cortex in the negative hierarchical valuable outcome contrast, “subject lost/inferior won > subject lost/inferior lost,” which also resulted in the nonsocial control condition (p < 0.05, FDR-corrected).Table 3Significantly Activated (p < 0.05, FDR-Corrected) Brain Regions in the Nonsocial Control Paradigm (Experiment #3)Brain RegionsBACluster Size (voxels)Peak MNI CoordinatesPeak Z ScorexyzSuperior Player > Inferior Player L precentral gyrus, incl.4838−36,−30,694.35 L postcentral gyrus1/2/3−48,−30,604.25 L inferior/middle occipital gyrus18/19476aCluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.−27,−96,−154.02 R inferior/middle occipital gyrus18/19395aCluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.30,−84,273.89 supplementary motor area6129aCluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.0,−3,544.04 L insula13385−42,0,33.63 R insula1314542,0,33.32 R parahippocampal gyrus50aCluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.18,−27,−93.76 L ventral striatum160−9,12,03.52 R ventral striatum30aCluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.9,15,−33.59Sub Lost/Inf Won > Sub Lost/Inf Lost L inferior occipital gyrus18/19359bCluster defined using p < 0.005, FDR-corrected.−36,−78,−155.56 L middle occipital gyrus18/1979bCluster defined using p < 0.005, FDR-corrected.−33,−90,124.54 R middle occipital gyrus19101bCluster defined using p < 0.005, FDR-corrected.36,−84,155.11 R fusiform gyrus3779bCluster defined using p < 0.005, FDR-corrected.30,−63,−154.69 R precuneus736bCluster defined using p < 0.005, FDR-corrected.21,−72484.34Sub Won/Sup Lost > Sub Won/Sup WoncNo significant activations.L, left hemisphere; R, right hemisphere; MNI, Montreal Neurological Institute; BA, Brodmann area; sub, subject; inf, inferior player; sup, superior player.a Cluster defined using p < 0.001, uncorrected.b Cluster defined using p < 0.005, FDR-corrected.c No significant activations. Open table in a new tab L, left hemisphere; R, right hemisphere; MNI, Montreal Neurological Institute; BA, Brodmann area; sub, subject; inf, inferior player; sup, superior player. In addition to this specific neural signature, the social and nonsocial paradigms were dissociable behaviorally as well (Figure S5). In postsession questionnaires, participants reported being significantly more influenced/motivated by the other players in the social experiment compared with the nonsocial experiment [p = 0.023; t(46) = 2.351; two-tailed; t test]. Additionally, it was significantly [p = 0.007; t(45) = 2.823; two-tailed; t test] more important for participants to perform better than the superior player in the social compared with the nonsocial paradigm. In the present study, we identified pronounced differential neural responses based on status when viewing another individual, despite the fact that status was irrelevant for the game outcome. Hierarchical status can be either fixed or changeable, and this aspect of social stratification has pronounced implications for individuals. In nonhuman and human primates, the more subordinate position in stable social hierarchies is associated with greater stress, whereas in dynamic hierarchies, the dominant position experiences the most stressors due to increased competition and instability (Sapolsky, 2004Sapolsky R.M. Social status and health in humans and other animals.Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2004; 33: 393-418Crossref Scopus (425) Google Scholar, Sapolsky, 2005Sapolsky R.M. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health.Science. 2005; 308: 648-652Crossref PubMed Scopus (1161) Google Scholar) during times of reorganization, and may be at greater health risks (Sapolsky, 2004Sapolsky R.M. Social status and health in humans and other animals.Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2004; 33: 393-418Crossref Scopus (425) Google Scholar). To address neural differences in processing stable and unstable hierarchical information, we modulated hierarchy stability in two experiments. Importantly, in addition to hierarchy stability, we also investigated social specificity using a nonsocial control experiment, allowing for the separation between the neural processing of general hierarchical information (i.e., ranked relative to an inanimate entity) and social hierarchical information (i.e., ranked relative to other human beings). In all hierarchical settings (stable, unstable, and nonsocial), brain activity when viewing a more superior player compared with viewing a more inferior player was significantly greater in occipital/parietal cortex, ventral striatum, and parahippocampal cortex, implicating these brain areas in the neural encoding of hierarchical rank, irrespective of the stability or specifically social nature of the hierarchy. Activity in the occipital/parietal cortex and ventral striatum indicates greater perceptual/attentional processing (Bradley et al., 2003Bradley M.M. Sabatinelli D. Lang P.J. Fitzsimmons J.R. King W. Desai P. Activation of the visual cortex in motivated attention.Behav. Neurosci. 2003; 117: 369-380Crossref PubMed Scopus (383) Google Scholar) and salience (Zink et al., 2006Zink C.F. Pagnoni G. Chappelow J. Martin-Skurski M. Berns G.S. Human striatal activation reflects degree of stimulus saliency.Neuroimage. 2006; 29: 977-983Crossref PubMed Scopus (130) Google Scholar), respectively, associated with the superior player, in excellent agreement with data on preferential attentional capture by high-rank individuals in monkeys (Deaner et al., 2005Deaner R.O. Khera A.V. Platt M.L. Monkeys pay per view: adaptive valuation of social images by rhesus macaques.Curr. Biol. 2005; 15: 543-548Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (299) Google Scholar). Increased activity in the parahippocampal cortex, a region shown to play a central role in contextual associative processing (Aminoff et al., 2007Aminoff E. Gronau N. Bar M. The parahippocampal cortex mediates spatial and nonspatial associations.Cereb. Cortex. 2007; 17: 1493-1503Crossref PubMed Scopus (242) Google Scholar), is suggestive of preferred contextual episodic encoding of the association between the superior rank status and the player's picture. While these regions did not appear to differentiate between social and nonsocial hierarchical information, the DLPFC activation to the superior versus inferior player was only seen in a social context, i.e., human other players, suggesting that the involvement of DLPFC in processing hierarchical information is specifically social. Our data support the notion that the DLPFC plays a role in making interpersonal judgments, including the assessment of social status (Mah et al., 2004Mah L. Arnold M.C. Grafman J. Impairment of social perception associated with lesions of the prefrontal cortex.Am. J. Psychiatry. 2004; 161: 1247-1255Crossref PubMed Scopus (124) Google Scholar). Furthermore, the DLPFC has been implicated in social norm compliance (Spitzer et al., 2007Spitzer M. Fischbacher U. Herrnberger B. Gron G. Fehr E. The neural signature of social norm compliance.Neuron. 2007; 56: 185-196Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (351) Google Scholar), a process that is strongly influenced by perceived social rank (Cummins, 2000Cummins D.D. How the social environment shaped the evolution of mind.Synthese. 2000; 122: 3-28Crossref Scopus (48) Google Scholar). In accordance with the social specificity of DLPFC activity resulting here, the DLPFC's role in social norm compliance was significantly more pronounced in a social context as compared with a nonsocial context (Spitzer et al., 2007Spitzer M. Fischbacher U. Herrnberger B. Gron G. Fehr E. The neural signature of social norm compliance.Neuron. 2007; 56: 185-196Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (351) Google Scholar). Interestingly, the social unstable hierarchical setting elicited multiple neural responses not produced with the other hierarchical settings (stable and nonsocial). Viewing a superior player compared with an inferior player in the social unstable hierarchy setting resulted in increases of activity in multiple areas linked with social emotional processing and social cognition. The amygdala, in particular, has been implicated in processing social emotional stimuli (Adolphs, 2003Adolphs R. Is the human amygdala specialized for processing social information?.Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. 2003; 985: 326-340Crossref PubMed Scopus (152) Google Scholar), as well as social anxiety associated with hierarchical challenge (Rilling et al., 2004Rilling J.K. Winslow J.T. Kilts C.D. The neural correlates of mate" @default.
• W2006241383 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2006241383 creator A5006015276 @default.
• W2006241383 creator A5009266404 @default.
• W2006241383 creator A5011912522 @default.
• W2006241383 creator A5019023443 @default.
• W2006241383 creator A5070124791 @default.
• W2006241383 creator A5073212256 @default.
• W2006241383 date "2008-04-01" @default.
• W2006241383 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2006241383 title "Know Your Place: Neural Processing of Social Hierarchy in Humans" @default.
• W2006241383 cites W101213476 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W1825286732 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W1966033532 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W1967419852 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W1978339758 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W1992467985 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W1994483275 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W1998215661 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2004415654 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2009054933 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2009120241 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2019161608 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2043181832 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2046523410 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2052610531 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2107751769 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2110247921 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2114877080 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2116146623 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2116342608 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2116649573 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2116982066 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2122387182 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2122669477 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2132266396 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2138586521 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2141978788 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2157300266 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2159150895 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2165149423 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2165558339 @default.
• W2006241383 cites W2169233494 @default.
• W2006241383 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.01.025" @default.
• W2006241383 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2430590" @default.
• W2006241383 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18439411" @default.
• W2006241383 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2006241383 type Work @default.
• W2006241383 sameAs 2006241383 @default.
• W2006241383 citedByCount "473" @default.
• W2006241383 countsByYear W20062413832012 @default.
• W2006241383 countsByYear W20062413832013 @default.
• W2006241383 countsByYear W20062413832014 @default.
• W2006241383 countsByYear W20062413832015 @default.
• W2006241383 countsByYear W20062413832016 @default.
• W2006241383 countsByYear W20062413832017 @default.
• W2006241383 countsByYear W20062413832018 @default.
• W2006241383 countsByYear W20062413832019 @default.
• W2006241383 countsByYear W20062413832020 @default.
• W2006241383 countsByYear W20062413832021 @default.
• W2006241383 countsByYear W20062413832022 @default.
• W2006241383 countsByYear W20062413832023 @default.
• W2006241383 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2006241383 hasAuthorship W2006241383A5006015276 @default.
• W2006241383 hasAuthorship W2006241383A5009266404 @default.
• W2006241383 hasAuthorship W2006241383A5011912522 @default.
• W2006241383 hasAuthorship W2006241383A5019023443 @default.
• W2006241383 hasAuthorship W2006241383A5070124791 @default.
• W2006241383 hasAuthorship W2006241383A5073212256 @default.
• W2006241383 hasBestOaLocation W20062413831 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConcept C31170391 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConceptScore W2006241383C15744967 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConceptScore W2006241383C169760540 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConceptScore W2006241383C17744445 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConceptScore W2006241383C180747234 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConceptScore W2006241383C188147891 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConceptScore W2006241383C199539241 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConceptScore W2006241383C31170391 @default.
• W2006241383 hasConceptScore W2006241383C46312422 @default.
• W2006241383 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2006241383 hasLocation W20062413831 @default.
• W2006241383 hasLocation W20062413832 @default.
• W2006241383 hasLocation W20062413833 @default.
• W2006241383 hasLocation W20062413834 @default.
• W2006241383 hasOpenAccess W2006241383 @default.
• W2006241383 hasPrimaryLocation W20062413831 @default.
• W2006241383 hasRelatedWork W1985950550 @default.
• W2006241383 hasRelatedWork W2004269815 @default.
• W2006241383 hasRelatedWork W2042940951 @default.
• W2006241383 hasRelatedWork W2050944115 @default.
• W2006241383 hasRelatedWork W2065074698 @default.

• next