文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：运动共振可以直通他心吗？批判性的重估

英文题名：Can we have direct access to other minds by “motor resonance”? A critical reassessment

作者：赵翥[1];陈巍[2];汪寅[3];李岩松[4]

机构：[1]云南师范大学心理学系,昆明650500;[2]绍兴文理学院心理学系,绍兴312000;[3]Department of Psychology,Temple University,Philadelphia 19122,USA;[4]南京大学社会学院心理学系、江苏省社会与行为科学实验中心,南京210023

年份：2017

卷号：62

期号：26

起止页码：3023

中文期刊名：科学通报

外文期刊名：Chinese Science Bulletin

收录：CSTPCD、、北大核心2014、CSCD2017_2018、北大核心、CSCD

基金：国家社会科学基金(16CZX015,14BSHO74);国家自然科学基金(31600929,81472163);江苏省高校哲学社会科学重点研究基地重大项目(2015JDXM001)资助

语种：中文

中文关键词：镜像神经元;动作理解;运动共振;直接匹配;延展的镜像神经元系统

外文关键词：mirror neurons; action understanding; motor resonance; direct matching; extended mirror neuron system

中文摘要：伴随镜像神经元的发现,读心问题在认知神经科学时代迎来了复兴.基于镜像神经元的发现及其功能的系统探索,运动共振理论试图论证:观察者脑中表征该动作知觉信息的知觉表征系统和表征该动作的运动表征系统之间无需其他中介就能直接进行信息的交换.由此,镜像神经元活动产生的运动共振可以实现对他人动作的识别与理解,从而实现执行者与观察者动作意图(或情绪体验)之间的直接匹配.虽然该理论得到了来自无创脑刺激技术、失用症、布洛卡失语症以及自闭症领域内证据的支持,但随着对运动共振可塑性及其发生学的认识不断深入,来自联想假说的挑战已经威胁到运动共振的基础假设.运动共振受到情境、社会与文化因素的影响,而不是一自动化、直通的理解他心方式.来自实证的挑战与来自理论的困境显示,运动共振并非理解动作的充要条件,大脑中可能存在多条通路可以实现读心.未来,需要将运动共振放置于延展的镜像神经元系统背景中予以考察,并借助颅内脑电记录等新技术来确认运动共振理论的核心假设是否成立.

外文摘要：The serendipitous discovery of mirror neurons in cognitive neuroscience has recently revived interest in the old philosophical ＂problem of other minds＂. The remarkable thing about the mirror neurons is that they fire not only when an individual is performing an action, but also when that individual passively observes a similar action performed by another individual. It is widely assumed that mirror neurons provide a ＂motor resonance＂ mechanism by which we can understand the actions of others by directly mapping the actions of other people onto our own motor system. This mechanism seems to bridge the gap between the self and the other, thus providing a direct access to other minds. Here we systematically review the motor resonance theory, discuss its current problems and challenges, and provide suggestions for future research. We firstly introduce the framework of the theory with its definitions, scopes and methods. In particular, we clarify several ambiguous notions in the literature such as ＂intra-vs. inter-personal resonance＂ and ＂movement vs. action＂. Then we outline empirical evidence in support of the theory from two bodies of research： Non-invasive neuro-stimulation（e.g. transcranial magnetic stimulation） and clinical studies with action understanding deficits（e.g. apraxia, Broca＇s aphasia and autism）. These studies suggest the motor resonance is the necessary and sufficient condition for direct access to other minds. Next, we summarize major criticisms of motor resonance theory in recent years. Ever since mirror neurons were discovered, there has been a great debate on its functions and ontogeny. Recent studies question its ＂direct-mapping＂ property by showing that sensory representation of an observed action can be arbitrarily mapped to the motor representation of a different action after sensorimotor training. This suggests the motor resonance may merely be a byproduct of associative learning, rather than an evolutionary selected mechanism for action understanding. In contrast, the Genetic hypothesis suggests motor resonance provides a unique direct-mapping mechanism for direct access to other minds, thus functions as an adaptation for action understanding. This claim has been supported by neonate imitation research as well as evidence showing early stage activity（250 ms） of mirror neurons cannot be modulated by short time sensorimotor training. Other criticisms challenge the directness of motor resonance by showing that motor resonance can be modulated by multiple contextual, social and cultural factors. This implies the mirror neuron system may intricately interact with other brain regions during motor resonance. Therefore, some suggests action understanding should be examined in the framework of ＂extended mirror neuron system＂ which includes other functional routes（other than motor resonance） such as the mentalizing system. We discuss three directions for future research. First, we believe most debates on motor resonance are ＂theoretical＂ instead of ＂empirical＂ issues. Theoretical dilemma such as ＂strict congruent vs. broadly congruent mirror neurons＂ cannot reconcile with the core ＂direct-mapping＂ mechanism; different levels of inference（e.g. low-level kinematics vs. high-level intention） should be separately theorized. More precise definitions and taxonomy in this field will allow for better assessments and hence a more fruitful empirical research. Second, the field could greatly benefit from investigating the ＂extended mirror neuron system＂. These distribute networks interact with classical frontal-parietal circuit during motor resonance and facilitate overall understanding of other＇s behavior. Future research is needed to elucidate the relationship between them. Finally, due to the technical limitations of current neuroimaging methods, it is challenging to obtain direct evidence that unequivocally proves or rejects motor resonance theory. We would encourage researchers to employ advanced technique with excellent spatial and temporal resolution（e.g. intracranial electroencephalography） to directly examine the processing sequence as well as the implicated brain regions during motor resonance.