Abstract
Across the cognitive sciences, researchers have studied theory of mind (making sense of other people’s behaviours in terms of their mental states, or ‘naive psychology’) and physical reasoning (making sense of physical events in terms of their underlying mechanics and dynamics, or ‘naive physics’), as two separate processes. In this Perspective, we describe two ways in which psychological reasoning depends on physical reasoning. First, people represent the bodies of animate agents as objects, and their actions as physical events. Second, people use physical knowledge to make inferences about other minds, including what other people want, feel and know, how hard they are trying, and how much danger they are in. We review research from developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience that provides evidence for the interaction between these two systems, and Bayesian computational models of theory of mind that articulate a formal hypothesis about how they work together. We propose that from early in human development people navigate the social world by using two distinct but interacting systems for reasoning about other agents’ ethereal minds and their physical bodies.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$59.00 per year
only $4.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout





Similar content being viewed by others
References
Descartes, R. in The Philosophical Works of Descartes (ed. Haldane, E. S.) 1–11 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1911).
Forstmann, M. & Burgmer, P. Adults are intuitive mind–body dualists. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144, 222–235 (2015).
Bloom, P. Descartes’ Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human (Random House, 2005).
Berent, I. The ‘hard problem of consciousness’ arises from human psychology. Open Mind 7, 564–587 (2023).
Fodor, J. A. The Modularity of Mind (MIT Press, 1983).
Marr, D. Vision (MIT Press, 1982).
Pietraszewski, D. & Wertz, A. E. Why evolutionary psychology should abandon modularity. Persp. Psychol. Sci. 17, 465–490 (2022).
Gopnik, A. & Meltzoff, A. N. Words, Thoughts, and Theories (MIT Press, 1997).
Gopnik, A. & Wellman, H. M. Why the child’s theory of mind really is a theory. Mind Lang. 7, 145–171 (1992).
Gelman, S. A. & Noles, N. S. Domains and naïve theories. Wiley Interdisc. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 2, 490–502 (2011).
Jara-Ettinger, J., Schulz, L. E. & Tenenbaum, J. B. The naïve utility calculus as a unified, quantitative framework for action understanding. Cogn. Psychol. 123, 101334 (2020).
Ullman, T. D. & Tenenbaum, J. B. Bayesian models of conceptual development: learning as building models of the world. Annu. Rev. Dev. Psychol. 2, 533–558 (2020).
Battaglia, P. W., Hamrick, J. B. & Tenenbaum, J. B. Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 18327–18332 (2013).
Ullman, T. D., Spelke, E., Battaglia, P. & Tenenbaum, J. B. Mind games: game engines as an architecture for intuitive physics. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21, 649–665 (2017).
Jara-Ettinger, J., Gweon, H., Schulz, L. E. & Tenenbaum, J. B. The naïve utility calculus: computational principles underlying commonsense psychology. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 589–604 (2016).
Baker, C. L., Jara-Ettinger, J., Saxe, R. & Tenenbaum, J. B. Rational quantitative attribution of beliefs, desires and percepts in human mentalizing. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0064 (2017).
Hirschfeld, L. A. & Gelman, S. A. in Mapping the Mind (eds Hirschfeld, L. A. & Gelman, S. A.) 3–36 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994).
McClelland, J. L. Parallel distributed processing: implications for cognition and development. Psychol. Neurobiol. 339, 8–45 (1988).
Baillargeon, R. in Advances in Psychological Science Vol. 2 (eds Sabourin, M. et al.) 503–529 (Psychology Press, 1998).
Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M. & Bian, L. Psychological reasoning in infancy. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 159–186 (2016).
Carey, S. The Origin of Concepts (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).
Kunin, L., Piccolo, S. H., Saxe, R. & Liu, S. Perceptual and conceptual novelty independently guide infant looking behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 2342–2356 (2024).
Liu, S. & Almeida, M. Knowing before doing: review and mega-analysis of action understanding in prereaching infants. Psychol. Bull. 149, 294–310 (2023).
Margoni, F., Surian, L. & Baillargeon, R. The violation-of-expectation paradigm: a conceptual overview. Psychol. Rev. 131, 716–748 (2023).
Spelke, E. S. What Babies Know: Core Knowledge and Composition Vol. 1 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2022).
Baillargeon, R., Spelke, E. S. & Wasserman, S. Object permanence in five-month-old infants. Cognition 20, 191–208 (1985).
Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J. & Jacobson, K. Origins of knowledge. Psychol. Rev. 99, 605–632 (1992).
Wynn, K. Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature 358, 749–750 (1992).
McCrink, K. & Wynn, K. Large-number addition and subtraction by 9-month-old infants. Psychol. Sci. 15, 776–781 (2004).
Muentener, P. & Carey, S. Infants’ causal representations of state change events. Cogn. Psychol. 61, 63–86 (2010).
Leslie, A. M. The perception of causality in infants. Perception 11, 173–186 (1982).
Newman, G. E., Choi, H., Wynn, K. & Scholl, B. J. The origins of causal perception: evidence from postdictive processing in infancy. Cogn. Psychol. 57, 262–291 (2008).
Dan, N., Omori, T. & Tomiyasu, Y. Development of infants’ intuitions about support relations: sensitivity to stability. Dev. Sci. 3, 171–180 (2000).
Needham, A. & Baillargeon, R. Intuitions about support in 4.5-month-old infants. Cognition 47, 121–148 (1993).
Kim, I. K. & Spelke, E. S. Infants’ sensitivity to effects of gravity on visible object motion. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 18, 385–393 (1992).
Baillargeon, R. Young infants’ reasoning about the physical and spatial properties of a hidden object. Cogn. Dev. 2, 179–200 (1987).
Hauf, P., Paulus, M. & Baillargeon, R. Infants use compression information to infer objects’ weights: examining cognition, exploration, and prospective action in a preferential-reaching task. Child Dev. 83, 1978–1995 (2012).
Upshaw, M. B. & Sommerville, J. A. Twelve-month-old infants anticipatorily plan their actions according to expected object weight in a novel motor context. Front. Public Health 3, 32 (2015).
Träuble, B. & Pauen, S. Infants’ reasoning about ambiguous motion events: the role of spatiotemporal and dispositional status information. Cogn. Dev. 26, 1–15 (2011).
Luo, Y., Kaufman, L. & Baillargeon, R. Young infants’ reasoning about physical events involving inert and self-propelled objects. Cogn. Psychol. 58, 441–486 (2009).
Luo, Y. & Baillargeon, R. Can a self-propelled box have a goal? Psychological reasoning in 5-month-old infants. Psychol. Sci. 16, 601–608 (2005).
Woodward, A. L. Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition 69, 1–34 (1998).
Phillips, A. T. & Wellman, H. M. Infants’ understanding of object-directed action. Cognition 98, 137–155 (2005).
Gergely, G. & Csibra, G. Teleological reasoning in infancy: the naïve theory of rational action. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 287–292 (2003).
Kuhlmeier, V. A., Bloom, P. & Wynn, K. Do 5-month-old infants see humans as material objects? Cognition 94, 95–103 (2004).
Saxe, R., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Carey, S. Secret agents: inferences about hidden causes by 10- and 12-month-old infants. Psychol. Sci. 16, 995–1001 (2005).
Liu, S., Brooks, N. B. & Spelke, E. S. Origins of the concepts cause, cost, and goal in prereaching infants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 17747–17752 (2019).
Woodward, A. L. Infants’ ability to distinguish between purposeful and non-purposeful behaviors. Infant Behav. Dev. 22, 145–160 (1999).
Woo, B. M., Liu, S. & Spelke, E. S. Infants rationally infer the goals of other people’s reaches in the absence of first-person experience with reaching actions. Dev. Sci. 27, e13453 (2023).
Luo, Y. & Johnson, S. C. Recognizing the role of perception in action at 6 months. Dev. Sci. 12, 142–149 (2009).
Choi, Y., Luo, Y. & Baillargeon, R. Can 5-month-old infants consider the perspective of a novel eyeless agent? New evidence for early mentalistic reasoning. Child Dev. 93, 571–581 (2022).
Skerry, A. E. & Spelke, E. S. Preverbal infants identify emotional reactions that are incongruent with goal outcomes. Cognition 130, 204–216 (2014).
Phillips, J. et al. Knowledge before belief. Behav. Brain Sci. 44, e140 (2020).
Perner, J. Understanding the Representational Mind (MIT Press, 1991).
Spelke, E. S., Katz, G., Purcell, S. E., Ehrlich, S. M. & Breinlinger, K. Early knowledge of object motion: continuity and inertia. Cognition 51, 131–176 (1994).
Kim, I.-K. & Spelke, E. S. Perception and understanding of effects of gravity and inertia on object motion. Dev. Sci. 2, 339–362 (1999).
McCloskey, M. & Kohl, D. Naive physics: the curvilinear impetus principle and its role in interactions with moving objects. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 9, 146–156 (1983).
McCloskey, M. Intuitive physics. Sci. Am. 248, 122–131 (1983).
Smith, K. et al. The fine structure of surprise in intuitive physics: when, why, and how much? In Proc. 42nd Ann. Meet. Cognitive Science Society (eds Denison, S. et al.) 3048–3054 (Cognitive Science Society, 2020).
Scholl, B. J. Objects and attention: the state of the art. Cognition 80, 1–46 (2001).
Scholl, B. J. & Tremoulet, P. D. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 299–309 (2000).
Gao, T., Newman, G. E. & Scholl, B. J. The psychophysics of chasing: a case study in the perception of animacy. Cogn. Psychol. 59, 154–179 (2009).
Shu, T. et al. AGENT: a benchmark for core psychological reasoning. In Proc. 38th Int. Conf. Machine Learning (eds Meila, M. & Zhang, T.) 9614–9625 (PMLR, 2021).
Balaban, H., Smith, K. A., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Ullman, T. D. Electrophysiology reveals that intuitive physics guides visual tracking and working memory. Open. Mind 8, 1425–1446 (2024).
Leslie, A. M., Xu, F., Tremoulet, P. D. & Scholl, B. J. Indexing and the object concept: developing ‘what’ and ‘where’ systems. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2, 10–18 (1998).
Michotte, A. The Perception of Causality 424 (Basic Books, 1963).
Choi, H. & Scholl, B. J. Effects of grouping and attention on the perception of causality. Percept. Psychophys. 66, 926–942 (2004).
Gao, T., McCarthy, G. & Scholl, B. J. The wolfpack effect. Perception of animacy irresistibly influences interactive behavior. Psychol. Sci. 21, 1845–1853 (2010).
Houlihan, S. D., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Hewitt, L. B., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Saxe, R. Emotion prediction as computation over a generative theory of mind. Phil. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 381, 20220047 (2023).
Samson, D., Apperly, I., Braithwaite, J., Andrews, B. & Bodley Scott, S. E. Seeing it their way: evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 36, 1255–1266 (2010).
Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A. & Brauner, J. S. Taking perspective in conversation: the role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychol. Sci. 11, 32–38 (2000).
Berent, I., Theodore, R. M. & Valencia, E. Autism attenuates the perception of the mind-body divide. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2211628119 (2022).
Cohen, E. & Barrett, J. When minds migrate: conceptualizing spirit possession. J. Cogn. Cult. 8, 23–48 (2008).
Bering, J. M. The folk psychology of souls. Behav. Brain Sci. 29, 453–462 (2006).
DiCarlo, J. J. & Cox, D. D. Untangling invariant object recognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 333–341 (2007).
Grill-Spector, K. & Weiner, K. S. The functional architecture of the ventral temporal cortex and its role in categorization. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 15, 536–548 (2014).
Groen, I. I. A., Silson, E. H. & Baker, C. I. Contributions of low- and high-level properties to neural processing of visual scenes in the human brain. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 372, 20160102 (2017).
Pramod, R. T., Mieczkowski, E., Fang, C. X., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Kanwisher, N. Decoding predicted future states from the brain’s ‘physics engine’. Sci. Adv. 11, eadr7429 (2025).
Jack, A. I. et al. fMRI reveals reciprocal inhibition between social and physical cognitive domains. NeuroImage 66, 385–401 (2013).
Kean, H. H. et al. Intuitive physical reasoning is not mediated by linguistic nor exclusively domain-general abstract representations. Neuropsychologia 213, 109125 (2025).
Fischer, J., Mikhael, J. G., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Kanwisher, N. Functional neuroanatomy of intuitive physical inference. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E5072–E5081 (2016).
Osiurak, F. et al. Shaping the physical world to our ends: the left PF technical-cognition area. eLife 13, RP94578 (2025).
Mason, R. A. & Just, M. A. Neural representations of physics concepts. Psychol. Sci. 27, 904–913 (2016).
Pramod, R. T., Cohen, M. A., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Kanwisher, N. Invariant representation of physical stability in the human brain. eLife 11, e71736 (2022).
Schwettmann, S., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Kanwisher, N. Invariant representations of mass in the human brain. eLife 8, e46619 (2019).
Isik, L., Koldewyn, K., Beeler, D. & Kanwisher, N. Perceiving social interactions in the posterior superior temporal sulcus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E9145–E9152 (2017).
Liu, S., Lydic, K., Mei, L. & Saxe, R. Violations of physical and psychological expectations in the human adult brain. Imaging Neurosci. 2, imag-2-00068 (2024).
Karakose-Akbiyik, S. Agents, Objects, and Actions: Investigations into the Neural Representation of Dynamic Information https://www.proquest.com/openview/15741d470560dde6cccd0141cab467eb/1 PhD thesis, Harvard Univ. (2024).
Mitchell, J. P., Heatherton, T. F. & Macrae, C. N. Distinct neural systems subserve person and object knowledge. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 15238–15243 (2002).
Hauptman, M. & Bedny, M. Inferring illness causes recruits the animacy semantic network. eLife 13, RP101944 (2024).
Wende, K. C. et al. Differences and commonalities in the judgment of causality in physical and social contexts: an fMRI study. Neuropsychologia 51, 2572–2580 (2013).
Fugelsang, J. A., Roser, M. E., Corballis, P. M., Gazzaniga, M. S. & Dunbar, K. N. Brain mechanisms underlying perceptual causality. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 24, 41–47 (2005).
Gallivan, J. P., Cant, J. S., Goodale, M. A. & Flanagan, J. R. Representation of object weight in human ventral visual cortex. Curr. Biol. 24, 1866–1873 (2014).
van Nuenen, B. F. L., Kuhtz-Buschbeck, J., Schulz, C., Bloem, B. R. & Siebner, H. R. Weight-specific anticipatory coding of grip force in human dorsal premotor cortex. J. Neurosci. 32, 5272–5283 (2012).
Karakose-Akbiyik, S., Caramazza, A. & Wurm, M. F. A shared neural code for the physics of actions and object events. Nat. Commun. 14, 3316 (2023).
Karakose-Akbiyik, S., Sussman, O., Wurm, M. F. & Caramazza, A. The role of agentive and physical forces in the neural representation of motion events. J. Neurosci. 44, e1363232023 (2023).
Zbären, G. A., Meissner, S. N., Kapur, M. & Wenderoth, N. Physical inference of falling objects involves simulation of occluded trajectories in early visual areas. Hum. Brain Mapp. 44, 4183–4196 (2023).
Parris, B. A., Kuhn, G., Mizon, G. A., Benattayallah, A. & Hodgson, T. L. Imaging the impossible: an fMRI study of impossible causal relationships in magic tricks. Neuroimage 45, 1033–1039 (2009).
Danek, A. H., Öllinger, M., Fraps, T., Grothe, B. & Flanagin, V. L. An fMRI investigation of expectation violation in magic tricks. Front. Psychol. 6, 84 (2015).
Wilcox, T. & Biondi, M. Object processing in the infant: lessons from neuroscience. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 406–413 (2015).
Gallagher, H. L. & Frith, C. D. Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 77–83 (2003).
Koster-Hale, J. & Saxe, R. in Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from developmental social neuroscience 3rd edn (eds Baron-Cohen, S. et al.) 132–163 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013).
DiNicola, L. M., Braga, R. M. & Buckner, R. L. Parallel distributed networks dissociate episodic and social functions within the individual. J. Neurophysiol. 123, 1144–1179 (2020).
Deen, B., Saxe, R. & Kanwisher, N. Processing communicative facial and vocal cues in the superior temporal sulcus. NeuroImage 221, 117191 (2020).
Walbrin, J., Downing, P. & Koldewyn, K. Neural responses to visually observed social interactions. Neuropsychologia 112, 31–39 (2018).
Richardson, H. et al. Reduced neural selectivity for mental states in deaf children with delayed exposure to sign language. Nat. Commun. 11, 3246 (2020).
Pitcher, D. & Ungerleider, L. G. Evidence for a third visual pathway specialized for social perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 100–110 (2021).
Martin, A. & Weisberg, J. Neural foundations for understanding social and mechanical concepts. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 20, 575–587 (2003).
Deen, B., Husain, G. & Freiwald, W. A. A familiar face and person processing area in the human temporal pole. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2321346121 (2024).
Lee Masson, H., Chen, J. & Isik, L. A shared neural code for perceiving and remembering social interactions in the human superior temporal sulcus. Neuropsychologia 196, 108823 (2024).
McMahon, E. & Isik, L. Abstract social interaction representations along the lateral pathway. Trends Cogn. Sci. 28, 392–393 (2024).
Nguyen, M., Vanderwal, T. & Hasson, U. Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses. NeuroImage 184, 161–170 (2019).
Hyde, D. C., Aparicio Betancourt, M. & Simon, C. E. Human temporal-parietal junction spontaneously tracks others’ beliefs: a functional near-infrared spectroscopy study. Hum. Brain Mapp. 36, 4831–4846 (2015).
Saxe, R. & Kanwisher, N. People thinking about thinking people: the role of the temporo-parietal junction in ‘theory of mind’. NeuroImage 19, 1835–1842 (2013).
Pelphrey, K. A., Viola, R. J. & McCarthy, G. When strangers pass: processing of mutual and averted social gaze in the superior temporal sulcus: processing of mutual and averted social gaze in the superior temporal sulcus. Psychol. Sci. 15, 598–603 (2004).
Carlin, J. D. & Calder, A. J. The neural basis of eye gaze processing. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 23, 450–455 (2013).
Jastorff, J., Clavagnier, S., Gergely, G. & Orban, G. A. Neural mechanisms of understanding rational actions: middle temporal gyrus activation by contextual violation. Cereb. Cortex 21, 318–329 (2011).
Brass, M., Schmitt, R. M., Spengler, S. & Gergely, G. Investigating action understanding: inferential processes versus action simulation. Curr. Biol. 17, 2117–2121 (2007).
Pelphrey, K. A., Morris, J. P. & McCarthy, G. Grasping the intentions of others: the perceived intentionality of an action influences activity in the superior temporal sulcus during social perception. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16, 1706–1716 (2004).
Spunt, R. P. & Adolphs, R. Validating the why/how contrast for functional MRI studies of theory of mind. NeuroImage 99, 301–311 (2014).
Gao, T., Scholl, B. J. & McCarthy, G. Dissociating the detection of intentionality from animacy in the right posterior superior temporal sulcus. J. Neurosci. 32, 14276–14280 (2012).
Tavares, P., Lawrence, A. D. & Barnard, P. J. Paying attention to social meaning: an FMRI study. Cereb. Cortex 18, 1876–1885 (2008).
Thompson, E. L., Bird, G. & Catmur, C. Mirror neuron brain regions contribute to identifying actions, but not intentions. Hum. Brain Mapp. 43, 4901–4913 (2022).
Adams, R. B. Jr et al. Cross-cultural reading the mind in the eyes: an fMRI investigation. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 97–108 (2010).
Bruneau, E., Dufour, N. & Saxe, R. How we know it hurts: item analysis of written narratives reveals distinct neural responses to others’ physical pain and emotional suffering. PLoS ONE 8, e63085 (2013).
Richardson, H., Lisandrelli, G., Riobueno-Naylor, A. & Saxe, R. Development of the social brain from age three to twelve years. Nat. Commun. 9, 1027 (2018).
Saxe, R. & Powell, L. J. It’s the thought that counts: specific brain regions for one component of theory of mind: specific brain regions for one component of theory of mind. Psychol. Sci. 17, 692–699 (2006).
Koster-Hale, J. et al. Mentalizing regions represent distributed, continuous, and abstract dimensions of others’ beliefs. NeuroImage 161, 9–18 (2017).
Skerry, A. E. & Saxe, R. A common neural code for perceived and inferred emotion. J. Neurosci. 34, 15997–16008 (2014).
Skerry, A. E. & Saxe, R. Neural representations of emotion are organized around abstract event features. Curr. Biol. 25, 1945–1954 (2015).
Peelen, M. V., Atkinson, A. P. & Vuilleumier, P. Supramodal representations of perceived emotions in the human brain. J. Neurosci. 30, 10127–10134 (2010).
Young, L., Camprodon, J. A., Hauser, M., Pascual-Leone, A. & Saxe, R. Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 6753–6758 (2010).
Kim, M. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Anzellotti, S. & Young, L. Theory of mind following the violation of strong and weak prior beliefs. Cereb. Cortex 31, 884–898 (2021).
Cloutier, J., Gabrieli, J. D. E., O’Young, D. & Ambady, N. An fMRI study of violations of social expectations: when people are not who we expect them to be. NeuroImage 57, 583–588 (2011).
Mende-Siedlecki, P., Baron, S. G. & Todorov, A. Diagnostic value underlies asymmetric updating of impressions in the morality and ability domains. J. Neurosci. 33, 19406–19415 (2013).
Redcay, E. & Schilbach, L. Using second-person neuroscience to elucidate the mechanisms of social interaction. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 20, 495–505 (2019).
Rilling, J. K., Sanfey, A. G., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E. & Cohen, J. D. The neural correlates of theory of mind within interpersonal interactions. NeuroImage 22, 1694–1703 (2004).
Elliott, R. et al. Co-operation with another player in a financially rewarded guessing game activates regions implicated in theory of mind. Soc. Neurosci. 1, 385–395 (2006).
Vélez, N., Chen, A. M., Burke, T., Cushman, F. A. & Gershman, S. J. Teachers recruit mentalizing regions to represent learners’ beliefs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2215015120 (2023).
Hyde, D. C., Simon, C. E., Ting, F. & Nikolaeva, J. I. Functional organization of the temporal-parietal junction for theory of mind in preverbal infants: a near-infrared spectroscopy study. J. Neurosci. 38, 4264–4274 (2018).
Powell, L. J., Deen, B. & Saxe, R. Using individual functional channels of interest to study cortical development with fNIRS. Dev. Sci. 21, e12595 (2018).
Kosakowski, H. L. et al. Cortical face-selective responses emerge early in human infancy. eNeuro 11, ENEURO.0117-24.2024 (2024).
Lloyd-Fox, S. et al. Social perception in infancy: a near infrared spectroscopy study. Child. Dev. 80, 986–999 (2009).
Grossmann, T. The development of social brain functions in infancy. Psychol. Bull. 141, 1266–1287 (2015).
Im, E. J., Shirahatti, A. & Isik, L. Early neural development of social interaction perception: evidence from voxel-wise encoding in young children and adults. J. Neurosci. 45, e2284232024 (2024).
Farris, K. et al. Processing third-party social interactions in the human infant brain. Infant Behav. Dev. 68, 101727 (2022).
Gweon, H., Dodell-Feder, D., Bedny, M. & Saxe, R. Theory of mind performance in children correlates with functional specialization of a brain region for thinking about thoughts. Child. Dev. 83, 1853–1868 (2012).
Fox, M. D. et al. The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 9673–9678 (2005).
Yeo, B. T. T. et al. The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. J. Neurophysiol. 106, 1125–1165 (2011).
Jack, A. I. in Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy Vol. 1 (eds Lombrozo, T., Knobe, J. & Nichols, S.) 173–207 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).
Goodale, M. A. & Milner, A. D. Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci. 15, 20–25 (1992).
Mishkin, M., Ungerleider, L. G. & Macko, K. A. Object vision and spatial vision: two cortical pathways. Trends Neurosci. 6, 414–417 (1983).
Saxe, R., Tzelnic, T. & Carey, S. Five-month-old infants know humans are solid, like inanimate objects. Cognition 101, B1–B8 (2006).
Cacchione, T. & Amici, F. Cohesion as a principle for perceiving objecthood: does it apply to animate agents? Swiss J. Psychol. 74, 217–228 (2015).
Leslie, A. M. Infant perception of a manual pick-up event. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 2, 19–32 (1984).
Kosugi, D. & Fujita, K. How do 8-month-old infants recognize causality in object motion and that in human action? Jpn. Psychol. Res. 44, 66–78 (2002).
Adibpour, P. & Hochmann, J.-R. Infants’ understanding of the causal power of agents and tools. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2309669120 (2023).
Shu, T., Peng, Y., Zhu, S.-C. & Lu, H. A unified psychological space for human perception of physical and social events. Cogn. Psychol. 128, 101398 (2021).
Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G. & Bíró, S. Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition 56, 165–193 (1995).
Liu, S. & Spelke, E. S. Six-month-old infants expect agents to minimize the cost of their actions. Cognition 160, 35–42 (2017).
Csibra, G., Bíró, S., Koós, O. & Gergely, G. One-year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productively. Cogn. Sci. 27, 111–133 (2003).
Caspers, S., Zilles, K., Laird, A. R. & Eickhoff, S. B. ALE meta-analysis of action observation and imitation in the human brain. NeuroImage 50, 1148–1167 (2010).
Hardwick, R. M., Caspers, S., Eickhoff, S. B. & Swinnen, S. P. Neural correlates of action: comparing meta-analyses of imagery, observation, and execution. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 94, 31–44 (2018).
Cross, E. S. et al. Dissociable substrates for body motion and physical experience in the human action observation network. Eur. J. Neurosci. 30, 1383–1392 (2009).
Rizzolatti, G. & Sinigaglia, C. The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: interpretations and misinterpretations. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 264–274 (2010).
Wurm, M. F. & Caramazza, A. Two ‘what’ pathways for action and object recognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 26, 103–116 (2022).
Lingnau, A. & Downing, P. E. The lateral occipitotemporal cortex in action. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 268–277 (2015).
Leshinskaya, A., Wurm, M. F. & Caramazza, A. in The Cognitive Neurosciences 6th edn (eds Poeppel, D. et al.) 755–764 (MIT Press, 2020).
Kemmerer, D. What modulates the mirror neuron system during action observation? Multiple factors involving the action, the actor, the observer, the relationship between actor and observer, and the context. Prog. Neurobiol. 205, 102128 (2021).
Grafton, S. T. & Hamilton, A. F. Evidence for a distributed hierarchy of action representation in the brain. Hum. Mov. Sci. 26, 590–616 (2007).
Gallivan, J. P. & Culham, J. C. Neural coding within human brain areas involved in actions. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 33, 141–149 (2015).
Pesaran, B., Nelson, M. J. & Andersen, R. A. Dorsal premotor neurons encode the relative position of the hand, eye, and goal during reach planning. Neuron 51, 125–134 (2006).
Alexander, G. E. & Crutcher, M. D. Preparation for movement: neural representations of intended direction in three motor areas of the monkey. J. Neurophysiol. 64, 133–150 (1990).
Cisek, P., Crammond, D. J. & Kalaska, J. F. Neural activity in primary motor and dorsal premotor cortex in reaching tasks with the contralateral versus ipsilateral arm. J. Neurophysiol. 89, 922–942 (2003).
Rizzolatti, G. & Matelli, M. Two different streams form the dorsal visual system: anatomy and functions. Exp. Brain Res. 153, 146–157 (2003).
Reynaud, E., Lesourd, M., Navarro, J. & Osiurak, F. On the neurocognitive origins of human tool use: a critical review of neuroimaging data. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 64, 421–437 (2016).
Ishibashi, R., Pobric, G., Saito, S. & Lambon Ralph, M. A. The neural network for tool-related cognition: an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of 70 neuroimaging contrasts. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 33, 241–256 (2016).
Liu, S., Ullman, T. D., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Spelke, E. S. Ten-month-old infants infer the value of goals from the costs of actions. Science 358, 1038–1041 (2017).
Liu, S. et al. Dangerous ground: one-year-old infants are sensitive to peril in other agents’ action plans. Open. Mind 6, 211–231 (2022).
Csibra, G. & Volein, Á. Infants can infer the presence of hidden objects from referential gaze information. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 26, 1–11 (2008).
Dunphy-Lelii, S. & Wellman, H. M. Infants’ understanding of occlusion of others’ line-of-sight: implications for an emerging theory of mind. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 1, 49–66 (2004).
Brooks, R. & Meltzoff, A. N. The importance of eyes: how infants interpret adult looking behavior. Dev. Psychol. 38, 958–966 (2002).
Repacholi, B. M. & Gopnik, A. Early reasoning about desires: evidence from 14- and 18-month-olds. Dev. Psychol. 33, 12–21 (1997).
Wu, Y., Schulz, L. E., Frank, M. C. & Gweon, H. Emotion as information in early social learning. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 30, 468–475 (2021).
Wu, Y., Merrick, M. & Gweon, H. Expecting the unexpected: infants use others’ surprise to revise their own expectations. Open Mind 8, 67–83 (2024).
Gjata, N. N., Ullman, T. D., Spelke, E. S. & Liu, S. What could go wrong: adults and children calibrate predictions and explanations of others’ actions based on relative reward and danger. Cogn. Sci. 46, e13163 (2022).
Sosa, F. A., Ullman, T., Tenenbaum, J. B., Gershman, S. J. & Gerstenberg, T. Moral dynamics: grounding moral judgment in intuitive physics and intuitive psychology. Cognition 217, 104890 (2021).
Xiang, Y., Landy, J., Cushman, F. A., Vélez, N. & Gershman, S. J. People reward others based on their willingness to exert effort. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 116, 104699 (2025).
Woo, B. M., Liu, S., Gweon, H. & Spelke, E. S. Toddlers prefer agents who help those facing harder tasks. Open Mind 8, 483–499 (2024).
Bigman, Y. E. & Tamir, M. The road to heaven is paved with effort: perceived effort amplifies moral judgment. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 1654–1669 (2016).
Greene, J. D. et al. Pushing moral buttons: the interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition 111, 364–371 (2009).
Jara-Ettinger, J., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Schulz, L. E. Not so innocent: toddlers’ inferences about costs and culpability. Psychol. Sci. 26, 633–640 (2015).
Buckwalter, W. & Turri, J. Inability and obligation in moral judgment. PLoS ONE 10, e0136589 (2015).
Vogeley, K. Two social brains: neural mechanisms of intersubjectivity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 372, 20160245 (2017).
Fedorenko, E., Duncan, J. & Kanwisher, N. Broad domain generality in focal regions of frontal and parietal cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 16616–16621 (2013).
Hamilton, A. F. de C. & Grafton, S. T. Goal representation in human anterior intraparietal sulcus. J. Neurosci. 26, 1133–1137 (2006).
Ramsey, R. & Hamilton, F. C. Triangles have goals too: understanding action representation in left aIPS. Neuropsychologia 48, 2773–2776 (2010).
Bruneau, E., Pluta, A. & Saxe, R. Distinct roles of the ‘shared pain’ and ‘theory of mind’ networks in processing others’ emotional suffering. Neuropsychologia 50, 219–231 (2012).
Jacoby, N., Bruneau, E., Koster-Hale, J. & Saxe, R. Localizing pain matrix and theory of mind networks with both verbal and non-verbal stimuli. NeuroImage 126, 39–48 (2016).
Urrutia, M., Gennari, S. P. & de Vega, M. Counterfactuals in action: an fMRI study of counterfactual sentences describing physical effort. Neuropsychologia 50, 3663–3672 (2012).
Schurz, M. et al. Clarifying the role of theory of mind areas during visual perspective taking: issues of spontaneity and domain-specificity. NeuroImage 117, 386–396 (2015).
Vogeley, K. et al. Neural correlates of first-person perspective as one constituent of human self-consciousness. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16, 817–827 (2004).
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
Poldrack, R. A. et al. The past, present, and future of the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS). Imaging Neurosci. 2, 1–19 (2024).
Fedorenko, E. The early origins and the growing popularity of the individual-subject analytic approach in human neuroscience. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 40, 105–112 (2021).
Baker, C. L., Saxe, R. & Tenenbaum, J. B. Action understanding as inverse planning. Cognition 113, 329–349 (2009).
Gerstenberg, T. & Tenenbaum, J. B. in Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning (ed. Waldmann, M. R.) 515–548 (Oxford Academic, 2017).
Jern, A., Lucas, C. G. & Kemp, C. People learn other people’s preferences through inverse decision-making. Cognition 168, 46–64 (2017).
Dennett, D. The Intentional Stance (MIT Press, 1987).
Jara-Ettinger, J. & Schachner, A. Traces of our past: the social representation of the physical world. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 33, 334–340 (2024).
Lopez-Brau, M., Kwon, J. & Jara-Ettinger, J. Social inferences from physical evidence via Bayesian event reconstruction. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 151, 2029–2042 (2022).
Newman, G. E., Keil, F. C., Kuhlmeier, V. A. & Wynn, K. Early understandings of the link between agents and order. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 17140–17145 (2010).
Gerstenberg, T. Counterfactual simulation in causal cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 28, 924–936 (2024).
Ho, M. K., Saxe, R. & Cushman, F. Planning with theory of mind. Trends Cogn. Sci. 26, 959–971 (2022).
Warneken, F., Chen, F. & Tomasello, M. Cooperative activities in young children and chimpanzees. Child. Dev. 77, 640–663 (2006).
Begus, K. & Southgate, V. Infant pointing serves an interrogative function. Dev. Sci. 15, 611–617 (2012).
Warneken, F. & Tomasello, M. Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science 311, 1301–1303 (2006).
Svetlova, M., Nichols, S. R. & Brownell, C. A. Toddlers’ prosocial behavior: from instrumental to empathic to altruistic helping. Child. Dev. 81, 1814–1827 (2010).
Bridgers, S., Jara-Ettinger, J. & Gweon, H. Young children consider the expected utility of others’ learning to decide what to teach. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 144–152 (2020).
Jara-Ettinger, J., Gweon, H., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Schulz, L. E. Children’s understanding of the costs and rewards underlying rational action. Cognition 140, 14–23 (2015).
Aboody, R., Zhou, C. & Jara-Ettinger, J. In pursuit of knowledge: preschoolers expect agents to weigh information gain and information cost when deciding whether to explore. Child. Dev. 92, 1919–1931 (2021).
Zhi-Xuan, T. et al. In RSS 2022 Workshop on Social Intelligence in Humans and Robots (eds Shu, T. et al.) https://ztangent.github.io/assets/pdf/2022-solving-bib.pdf (2022).
Stojnić, G., Gandhi, K., Yasuda, S., Lake, B. M. & Dillon, M. R. Commonsense psychology in human infants and machines. Cognition 235, 105406 (2023).
Rabinowitz, N. et al. In Proc. 35th Int. Conf. Machine Learning (eds Dy, J. & Krause, A.) Vol. 80, 4218–4227 (PMLR, 2018).
Baillargeon, R. in Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (ed. Goswami, U.) 47–83 (Blackwell, 2002).
Baillargeon, R., Needham, A. & Devos, J. The development of young infants’ intuitions about support. Early Dev. Parent. 1, 69–78 (1992).
Smith, C., Carey, S. & Wiser, M. On differentiation: a case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition 21, 177–237 (1985).
Hubbard, T. L. The possibility of an impetus heuristic. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 29, 2015–2033 (2022).
Parkinson, C., Liu, S. & Wheatley, T. A common cortical metric for spatial, temporal, and social distance. J. Neurosci. 34, 1979–1987 (2014).
Friedrich, J., Fischer, M. H. & Raab, M. Invariant representations in abstract concept grounding — the physical world in grounded cognition. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 31, 2558–2580 (2024).
Powell, L. J. Adopted utility calculus: origins of a concept of social affiliation. Persp. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1215–1233 (2022).
Hamlin, J. K. Moral judgment and action in preverbal infants and toddlers: evidence for an innate moral core. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22, 186–193 (2013).
Thomas, A. J. Cognitive representations of social relationships and their developmental origins. Behav. Brain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X24001328 (2024).
Mascaro, O. & Csibra, G. Representation of stable social dominance relations by human infants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 6862–6867 (2012).
Thomas, A. J., Thomsen, L., Lukowski, A. F., Abramyan, M. & Sarnecka, B. W. Toddlers prefer those who win but not when they win by force. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 662–669 (2018).
Pun, A., Birch, S. A. J. & Baron, A. Infants infer third-party social dominance relationships based on visual access to intergroup conflict. Sci. Rep. 12, 18250 (2022).
Meristo, M. & Surian, L. Do infants detect indirect reciprocity? Cognition 129, 102–113 (2013).
Hamlin, J. K., Ullman, T., Tenenbaum, J., Goodman, N. & Baker, C. The mentalistic basis of core social cognition: experiments in preverbal infants and a computational model. Dev. Sci. 16, 209–226 (2013).
Choi, Y.-J. & Luo, Y. 13-month-olds’ understanding of social interactions. Psychol. Sci. 26, 274–283 (2015).
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M. & Frith, U. Mechanical, behavioural and intentional understanding of picture stones in autistic children. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 4, 113125 (1986).
Binnie, L. & Williams, J. Intuitive psychology and physics among children with autism and typically developing children. Autism 7, 173–193 (2003).
Baron-Cohen, S., Victoria Scahill, S. W. & Lawson, J. Are intuitive physics and intuitive psychology independent? A test with children with Asperger syndrome. J. Dev. Learn. Disord. 5, 47–78 (2001).
Poulin-Dubois, D., Dutemple, E. & Burnside, K. Naïve theories of biology, physics, and psychology in children with ASD. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 51, 3600–3609 (2021).
Karmiloff-Smith, A., Klima, E., Bellugi, U., Grant, J. & Baron-Cohen, S. Is there a social module? Language, face processing, and theory of mind in individuals with Williams syndrome. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 7, 196–208 (1995).
Kamps, F. S. et al. Dissociating intuitive physics from intuitive psychology: evidence from Williams syndrome. Cognition 168, 146–153 (2017).
Sparaci, L., Stefanini, S., Marotta, L., Vicari, S. & Rizzolatti, G. Understanding motor acts and motor intentions in Williams syndrome. Neuropsychologia 50, 1639–1649 (2012).
Boria, S. et al. Intention understanding in autism. PLoS ONE 4, e5596 (2009).
Hamilton, A. F., de, C., Brindley, R. M. & Frith, U. Imitation and action understanding in autistic spectrum disorders: how valid is the hypothesis of a deficit in the mirror neuron system? Neuropsychologia 45, 1859–1868 (2007).
Leslie, A. M. & Frith, U. Autistic children’s understanding of seeing, knowing and believing. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 6, 315–324 (1988).
Leslie, A. M. & Thaiss, L. Domain specificity in conceptual development: neuropsychological evidence from autism. Cognition 43, 225–251 (1992).
Ziccarelli, S., Errante, A. & Fogassi, L. Decoding point-light displays and fully visible hand grasping actions within the action observation network. Hum. Brain Mapp. 43, 4293–4309 (2022).
Brandi, M.-L., Wohlschläger, A., Sorg, C. & Hermsdörfer, J. The neural correlates of planning and executing actual tool use. J. Neurosci. 34, 13183–13194 (2014).
Fischer, J. & Mahon, B. Z. What tool representation, intuitive physics, and action have in common: the brain’s first-person physics engine. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 38, 455–467 (2021).
Goldenberg, G. & Spatt, J. The neural basis of tool use. Brain 132, 1645–1655 (2009).
Malle, B. F. Moral judgments. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72, 293–318 (2021).
Carlson, R. W., Bigman, Y. E., Gray, K., Ferguson, M. J. & Crockett, M. J. How inferred motives shape moral judgements. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 468–478 (2022).
Bartels, D. M., Bauman, C. W., Cushman, F. A., Pizarro, D. A. & McGraw, A. P. in The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making 1st edn (eds Keren, G. & Wu, G.) 478–515 (John Wiley & Sons, 2015).
Greene, J. D. in The Moral Brain: A Multidisciplinary Perspective (eds Decety, J. & Wheatley, T.) Ch. 12 (MIT Press, 2015).
Van Bavel, J. J., FeldmanHall, O. & Mende-Siedlecki, P. The neuroscience of moral cognition: from dual processes to dynamic systems. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 6, 167–172 (2015).
Young, L. & Dungan, J. Where in the brain is morality? Everywhere and maybe nowhere. Soc. Neurosci. 7, 1–10 (2012).
Inagaki, K. & Hatano, G. Vitalistic causality in young children’s naive biology. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 356–362 (2004).
Carey, S. Conceptual Change in Childhood (MIT Press, 1985).
Morris, S. C., Taplin, J. E. & Gelman, S. A. Vitalism in naive biological thinking. Dev. Psychol. 36, 582–595 (2000).
Schulz, L., Bonawitz, E. & Griffiths, T. Can being scared cause tummy aches? Naive theories, ambiguous evidence, and preschoolers’ causal inferences. Dev. Psychol. 43, 1124–1139 (2007).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Cambridge Writing Group, the ECR Writing Group, members of the Johns Hopkins community (especially C. Firestone, L. Feigenson, M. Hauptman, D. Lee, L. Isik and T. Shu), and R. Saxe, E. Spelke and A. Thomas for helpful discussion and feedback.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.L., S.K.-A. and J.O. led the conceptualization of the paper, with support from M.J.K. S.L. led project supervision and project administration. S.L. and S.K.-A. led visualization, with support from J.O. and M.J.K. S.L. led writing of the original draft, with support from S.K.-A., J.O. and M.J.K., and all authors contributed to subsequent revisions and edits.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Psychology thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, S., Karakose-Akbiyik, S., Outa, J. et al. How physical information is used to make sense of the psychological world. Nat Rev Psychol 5, 59–73 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00514-1
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00514-1


