Predicting our loved ones using mirror neurons

PREDICTING OUR LOVED ONES USING MIRROR

NEURONS

Ortigue & Bianchi-Demicheli (2008) Why is your spouse so predictable? Connecting mirror

neuron system and self-expansion model of love. Medical Hypotheses. 71: 941-944

What are they again?

What do they do?

Where are they?

RE-CAP ON MIRROR NEURONS

Aron & Aron (1986) self-expansion model

Merging the self with another (i.e. cheesy matching couples)

Supporting studies• Money distribution

study (Aron et al, 1991)

SELF-EXPANSION MODEL OF LOVE

SELF-RELATED BRAIN NETWORK

Neuroimaging studies and recruitment of self-related brain network

Particular attention to:• Inferior parietal lobule • Angular gyrus

• Abstract representation of passionate love, and metaphors (Ortigue & Bianchi-Demicheli, 2008)

Faster meaningful cognitive decision making with “in love” people (Bianchi-Demicheli et al, 2006)

LOVERS NAME EXPERIMENT (ORTIGUE ET AL, 2007)

L OV E : A N I N T E G R AT E D C O G N I T I V E M E C H A N I S M

Not just an emotion/ motivation

Implications for love relationships with ‘theory of mind’

Cognitive facilitation effect formed rational for mirror neuron system hypothesis

MNS AND SOCIAL COGNITION

Use of MNS to understand social interactions

Sensory representation of the observed actions

with own motor representation of same action

(Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004)

Automatic cognitive expansion of self through

embodied simulation (Ramachandran & Oberman,

2006)• e.g. being able to “feel someone’s pain” when they

get their finger jammed in a door

HYPOTHESES

Significant relationship between the cerebral

correlates of love and at least one brain regions

located within the MNS.

People who are in love are faster at automatically

understanding the intentions of their beloved

MNS facilitates the modelling of behaviour through

a mechanism of embodied simulation.

TESTING HYPOTHESES

Provisional data (38 volunteers; 18-25 years old)

Supports prediction that understanding of other’s

intentions facilitated for couples “in love”

People in love faster in understanding/predicting

intentions than control (p<0.01)

FURTHER COMMENTS

Disruption of MNS activity prevent facilitation

effect of experiential understanding.

Dysfunctions of the MNS- deficits in the love

relationship

MNS is less activated in those with “love

interaction” impairment

mu rhythm reliable predictor of human MNS

activity in love relationships

“Love” subjective and

abstract

Difficult to assess

Interesting hypotheses

but are we convinced of

potential further

research?

CONCLUSIONS