Brain Topography

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 278–283 | Cite as

Bayesian Models of Mentalizing

  • Rolando Grave de Peralta MenendezEmail author
  • Amal Achaïbou
  • Pierre Bessière
  • Patrik Vuilleumier
  • Sara Gonzalez Andino
Original Paper


Surprisingly effortless is the human capacity known as “mentalizing”, i.e., the ability to explain and predict the behavior of others by attributing to them independent mental states, such as beliefs, desires, emotions or intentions. This capacity is, among other factors, dependent on the correct anticipation of the dynamics of facially expressed emotions based on our beliefs and experience. Important information about the neural processes involved in mentalizing can be derived from dynamic recordings of neural activity such as the EEG. We here exemplify how the so-called Bayesian probabilistic models can help us to model the neural dynamic involved in the perception of clips that evolve from neutral to emotionally laden faces. Contrasting with conventional models, in Bayesian models, probabilities can be used to dynamically update beliefs based on new incoming information. Our results show that a reproducible model of the neural dynamic involved in the appraisal of facial expression can be derived from the grand mean ERP over five subjects. One of the two models used to predict the individual subject dynamic yield correct estimates for four of the five subjects analyzed. These results encourage the future use of Bayesian formalism to build more detailed models able to describe the single trial dynamic.


EEG Bayesian Mentalizing Emotional faces Modeling 



This work has been supported by the European Program FP6-IST-027140 (BACS). This paper only reflects the authors’ views and funding agencies are not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.


  1. 1.
    Abu-Akel A. A neurobiological mapping of theory of mind. Brain Res Rev 2003;43:29–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Achaibou A, Pourtois G, Schwartz S, Vuilleumier P. Simultaneous recording of EEG and facial muscle reactions during spontaneous emotional mimicry. Neuropsychologia 2007 doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.10.019.
  3. 3.
    Baillet S, Garnero L. A Bayesian approach to introducing anatomo-functional priors in the EEG/MEG inverse problem. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1997;44:374–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ekman P, Friesen WV. Measuring facial movement. Env Psychol Nonverbal Behav 1976;1:56–75.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friston K, Harrison L, Daunizeau J, Kiebel S, Phillips C, Trujillo-Barreto N, Henson R, Flandin G, Mattout J. Multiple sparse priors for the M/EEG inverse problem. Neuroimage 2007;39: 1104–20.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friston K, Henson R, Phillips C, Mattout J. Bayesian estimation of evoked and induced responses. Hum Brain Mapp 2006;27: 722–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frith CD. The social brain? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2007;362:671–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Galka A, Yamashita O, Ozaki T, Biscay R, Valdes-Sosa P. A solution to the dynamical inverse problem of EEG generation using spatiotemporal Kalman filtering. Neuroimage 2004;23:435–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kilner JM, Friston KJ, Frith CD. The mirror-neuron system: a Bayesian perspective. Neuroreport 2007;18:619–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kohlmorgen J, Blankertz B. Bayesian classification of single-trial event-related potentials in EEG. Int J Bif Chaos 2004;14: 719–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Michel CM, Henggeler B, Lehmann D. 42-Channel potential map series to visual contrast and stereo stimuli: perceptual and cognitive event-related segments. Int J Psychophysiol 1992;12:133–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rizzolatti G, Craighero L. The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci 2004;27:169–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roberts SJ, Penny WD. Real-time brain-computer interfacing: a preliminary study using Bayesian learning. Med Biol Eng Comput 2000;38:56–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siegal M, Varley R. Neural systems involved in “theory of mind”. Nat Rev Neurosci 2002;3:463–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singer T. The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: review of literature and implications for future research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2006;30:855–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thrun S, Burgard W, Fox D. Probabilistic robotics. MIT Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trujillo-Barreto NJ, Aubert-Vazquez E, Penny WD. Bayesian M/EEG source reconstruction with spatio-temporal priors. Neuroimage 2008;39:318–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wackermann J, Lehmann D, Michel CM, Strik WK. Adaptive segmentation of spontaneous EEG map series into spatially defined microstates. Int J Psychophysiol 1993;14:269–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wicker B, Keysers C, Plailly J, Royet JP, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G. Both of us disgusted in My insula: the common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust. Neuron 2003;40:655–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rolando Grave de Peralta Menendez
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Amal Achaïbou
    • 2
    • 4
  • Pierre Bessière
    • 5
  • Patrik Vuilleumier
    • 2
    • 4
  • Sara Gonzalez Andino
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Electrical Neuroimaging Group, Department of Clinical NeuroscienceGeneva University HospitalGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Neuroscience and Clinic of NeurologyUniversity Medical CentreGenevaSwitzerland
  3. 3.Neurodynamics Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Clinical PsychobiologyUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Laboratory for Neurology and Imaging of CognitionGenevaSwitzerland
  5. 5.CNRS - IMAG/GRAVIRGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations