Brain neuromarkers predict self- and other-related mentalizing across adult, clinical, and developmental samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Human social interactions rely on the ability to reflect on one’s own and others’ internal states and traits—a process known as mentalizing. Impaired or altered mentalizing is a hallmark of multiple psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions. Yet, replicable and easily testable brain markers of mentalizing have so far been lacking. Here, we apply an interpretable machine learning approach to multiple datasets (total N =390) to train and validate fMRI brain signatures that predict i) mentalizing about the self, ii) mentalizing about another person, and iii) both types of mentalizing. Self-mentalizing and other-mentalizing classifiers had positive weights in anterior/medial and posterior/lateral brain areas, respectively, with accuracy rates of 82% and 77% for out-of-sample prediction. The classifier trained across both types of mentalizing showed 98% predictive accuracy and separated (mental) attributional from factual inferences. Classifier patterns revealed better self/other separation in healthy adults compared to individuals with schizophrenia and with increasing age in adolescence. Together, our findings reveal consistent and separable neural patterns subserving trait-based mentalizing about self and others—present at least from the age of adolescence and functionally altered in severe neuropsychiatric disorders. These mentalizing signatures hold promise as candidate neuromarkers of social-cognitive processes in different contexts and clinical conditions. Author Note This work was funded by a Starting Grant from the European Research Council (ERC, 101041087) to LKo, a German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) doctoral grant and a Network of European Neuroscience Schools (NENS) exchange fellowship to DA, an R01 grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Mental Health (R01MH125414-01) to JAH and DAS, a Junior Leader Fellowship from “la Caixa” Foundation (LCF/BQ/PR22/11920017) to PFC, a Consolidator Grant from the European Research Council (ERC, 648082) to LKr, R37, R01 support from the U.S. National Institutes of Mental Health (R37MH076136 to TDW, MH116026 to TDW and L. Chang [PI], R01EB026549 to TDW and M. Lindquist [MPIs]), an NIMH grant (P50MH094258-01A1) to R. Adolphs, and a CIC Brain and Mental Health Chair from the Neurodis foundation to AT. LvdM acknowledges a European Science Foundation EURYI grant (044035001) that funded her doctoral studies (PI: A. Aleman). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. The funders had no role in study design, data analysis, manuscript preparation, or publication decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".