Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

How physical information is used to make sense of the psychological world

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

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Modelling people as minds acting in a physical world.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 2: Brain regions that support naive physics and naive psychology.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 3: Competing hypotheses about the organization of naive physics and psychology.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 4: Integration of naive physics and naive psychology.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 5: Schematic for Bayesian theory-of-mind models.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Descartes, R. in The Philosophical Works of Descartes (ed. Haldane, E. S.) 1–11 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1911).

  2. Forstmann, M. & Burgmer, P. Adults are intuitive mind–body dualists. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144, 222–235 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bloom, P. Descartes’ Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human (Random House, 2005).

  4. Berent, I. The ‘hard problem of consciousness’ arises from human psychology. Open Mind 7, 564–587 (2023).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Fodor, J. A. The Modularity of Mind (MIT Press, 1983).

  6. Marr, D. Vision (MIT Press, 1982).

  7. Pietraszewski, D. & Wertz, A. E. Why evolutionary psychology should abandon modularity. Persp. Psychol. Sci. 17, 465–490 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gopnik, A. & Meltzoff, A. N. Words, Thoughts, and Theories (MIT Press, 1997).

  9. Gopnik, A. & Wellman, H. M. Why the child’s theory of mind really is a theory. Mind Lang. 7, 145–171 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gelman, S. A. & Noles, N. S. Domains and naïve theories. Wiley Interdisc. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 2, 490–502 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hirschfeld, L. A. & Gelman, S. A. in Mapping the Mind (eds Hirschfeld, L. A. & Gelman, S. A.) 3–36 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994).

  18. McClelland, J. L. Parallel distributed processing: implications for cognition and development. Psychol. Neurobiol. 339, 8–45 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Baillargeon, R. in Advances in Psychological Science Vol. 2 (eds Sabourin, M. et al.) 503–529 (Psychology Press, 1998).

  20. Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M. & Bian, L. Psychological reasoning in infancy. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 159–186 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Carey, S. The Origin of Concepts (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

  22. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu, S. & Almeida, M. Knowing before doing: review and mega-analysis of action understanding in prereaching infants. Psychol. Bull. 149, 294–310 (2023).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Margoni, F., Surian, L. & Baillargeon, R. The violation-of-expectation paradigm: a conceptual overview. Psychol. Rev. 131, 716–748 (2023).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Spelke, E. S. What Babies Know: Core Knowledge and Composition Vol. 1 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2022).

  26. Baillargeon, R., Spelke, E. S. & Wasserman, S. Object permanence in five-month-old infants. Cognition 20, 191–208 (1985).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J. & Jacobson, K. Origins of knowledge. Psychol. Rev. 99, 605–632 (1992).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wynn, K. Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature 358, 749–750 (1992).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McCrink, K. & Wynn, K. Large-number addition and subtraction by 9-month-old infants. Psychol. Sci. 15, 776–781 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Muentener, P. & Carey, S. Infants’ causal representations of state change events. Cogn. Psychol. 61, 63–86 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Leslie, A. M. The perception of causality in infants. Perception 11, 173–186 (1982).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dan, N., Omori, T. & Tomiyasu, Y. Development of infants’ intuitions about support relations: sensitivity to stability. Dev. Sci. 3, 171–180 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Needham, A. & Baillargeon, R. Intuitions about support in 4.5-month-old infants. Cognition 47, 121–148 (1993).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Baillargeon, R. Young infants’ reasoning about the physical and spatial properties of a hidden object. Cogn. Dev. 2, 179–200 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Träuble, B. & Pauen, S. Infants’ reasoning about ambiguous motion events: the role of spatiotemporal and dispositional status information. Cogn. Dev. 26, 1–15 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Luo, Y., Kaufman, L. & Baillargeon, R. Young infants’ reasoning about physical events involving inert and self-propelled objects. Cogn. Psychol. 58, 441–486 (2009).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Woodward, A. L. Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition 69, 1–34 (1998).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Phillips, A. T. & Wellman, H. M. Infants’ understanding of object-directed action. Cognition 98, 137–155 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gergely, G. & Csibra, G. Teleological reasoning in infancy: the naïve theory of rational action. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 287–292 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kuhlmeier, V. A., Bloom, P. & Wynn, K. Do 5-month-old infants see humans as material objects? Cognition 94, 95–103 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Woodward, A. L. Infants’ ability to distinguish between purposeful and non-purposeful behaviors. Infant Behav. Dev. 22, 145–160 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Luo, Y. & Johnson, S. C. Recognizing the role of perception in action at 6 months. Dev. Sci. 12, 142–149 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Skerry, A. E. & Spelke, E. S. Preverbal infants identify emotional reactions that are incongruent with goal outcomes. Cognition 130, 204–216 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Phillips, J. et al. Knowledge before belief. Behav. Brain Sci. 44, e140 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Perner, J. Understanding the Representational Mind (MIT Press, 1991).

  55. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kim, I.-K. & Spelke, E. S. Perception and understanding of effects of gravity and inertia on object motion. Dev. Sci. 2, 339–362 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. McCloskey, M. Intuitive physics. Sci. Am. 248, 122–131 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  59. 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).

  60. Scholl, B. J. Objects and attention: the state of the art. Cognition 80, 1–46 (2001).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Scholl, B. J. & Tremoulet, P. D. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 299–309 (2000).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 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).

  64. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Michotte, A. The Perception of Causality 424 (Basic Books, 1963).

  67. Choi, H. & Scholl, B. J. Effects of grouping and attention on the perception of causality. Percept. Psychophys. 66, 926–942 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Gao, T., McCarthy, G. & Scholl, B. J. The wolfpack effect. Perception of animacy irresistibly influences interactive behavior. Psychol. Sci. 21, 1845–1853 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  70. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Berent, I., Theodore, R. M. & Valencia, E. Autism attenuates the perception of the mind-body divide. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2211628119 (2022).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Cohen, E. & Barrett, J. When minds migrate: conceptualizing spirit possession. J. Cogn. Cult. 8, 23–48 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Bering, J. M. The folk psychology of souls. Behav. Brain Sci. 29, 453–462 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. DiCarlo, J. J. & Cox, D. D. Untangling invariant object recognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 333–341 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  78. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Jack, A. I. et al. fMRI reveals reciprocal inhibition between social and physical cognitive domains. NeuroImage 66, 385–401 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Kean, H. H. et al. Intuitive physical reasoning is not mediated by linguistic nor exclusively domain-general abstract representations. Neuropsychologia 213, 109125 (2025).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Osiurak, F. et al. Shaping the physical world to our ends: the left PF technical-cognition area. eLife 13, RP94578 (2025).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Mason, R. A. & Just, M. A. Neural representations of physics concepts. Psychol. Sci. 27, 904–913 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Pramod, R. T., Cohen, M. A., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Kanwisher, N. Invariant representation of physical stability in the human brain. eLife 11, e71736 (2022).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Schwettmann, S., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Kanwisher, N. Invariant representations of mass in the human brain. eLife 8, e46619 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  88. 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).

  89. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Hauptman, M. & Bedny, M. Inferring illness causes recruits the animacy semantic network. eLife 13, RP101944 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  91. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  97. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Wilcox, T. & Biondi, M. Object processing in the infant: lessons from neuroscience. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 406–413 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Gallagher, H. L. & Frith, C. D. Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 77–83 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. 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).

  103. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Deen, B., Saxe, R. & Kanwisher, N. Processing communicative facial and vocal cues in the superior temporal sulcus. NeuroImage 221, 117191 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Walbrin, J., Downing, P. & Koldewyn, K. Neural responses to visually observed social interactions. Neuropsychologia 112, 31–39 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Richardson, H. et al. Reduced neural selectivity for mental states in deaf children with delayed exposure to sign language. Nat. Commun. 11, 3246 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Pitcher, D. & Ungerleider, L. G. Evidence for a third visual pathway specialized for social perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 100–110 (2021).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Martin, A. & Weisberg, J. Neural foundations for understanding social and mechanical concepts. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 20, 575–587 (2003).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. McMahon, E. & Isik, L. Abstract social interaction representations along the lateral pathway. Trends Cogn. Sci. 28, 392–393 (2024).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Nguyen, M., Vanderwal, T. & Hasson, U. Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses. NeuroImage 184, 161–170 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  115. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Carlin, J. D. & Calder, A. J. The neural basis of eye gaze processing. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 23, 450–455 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Brass, M., Schmitt, R. M., Spengler, S. & Gergely, G. Investigating action understanding: inferential processes versus action simulation. Curr. Biol. 17, 2117–2121 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Spunt, R. P. & Adolphs, R. Validating the why/how contrast for functional MRI studies of theory of mind. NeuroImage 99, 301–311 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Tavares, P., Lawrence, A. D. & Barnard, P. J. Paying attention to social meaning: an FMRI study. Cereb. Cortex 18, 1876–1885 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Adams, R. B. Jr et al. Cross-cultural reading the mind in the eyes: an fMRI investigation. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 97–108 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Koster-Hale, J. et al. Mentalizing regions represent distributed, continuous, and abstract dimensions of others’ beliefs. NeuroImage 161, 9–18 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Skerry, A. E. & Saxe, R. A common neural code for perceived and inferred emotion. J. Neurosci. 34, 15997–16008 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Skerry, A. E. & Saxe, R. Neural representations of emotion are organized around abstract event features. Curr. Biol. 25, 1945–1954 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Peelen, M. V., Atkinson, A. P. & Vuilleumier, P. Supramodal representations of perceived emotions in the human brain. J. Neurosci. 30, 10127–10134 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Redcay, E. & Schilbach, L. Using second-person neuroscience to elucidate the mechanisms of social interaction. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 20, 495–505 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Powell, L. J., Deen, B. & Saxe, R. Using individual functional channels of interest to study cortical development with fNIRS. Dev. Sci. 21, e12595 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Kosakowski, H. L. et al. Cortical face-selective responses emerge early in human infancy. eNeuro 11, ENEURO.0117-24.2024 (2024).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Lloyd-Fox, S. et al. Social perception in infancy: a near infrared spectroscopy study. Child. Dev. 80, 986–999 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Grossmann, T. The development of social brain functions in infancy. Psychol. Bull. 141, 1266–1287 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  146. Farris, K. et al. Processing third-party social interactions in the human infant brain. Infant Behav. Dev. 68, 101727 (2022).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Yeo, B. T. T. et al. The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. J. Neurophysiol. 106, 1125–1165 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Jack, A. I. in Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy Vol. 1 (eds Lombrozo, T., Knobe, J. & Nichols, S.) 173–207 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).

  151. Goodale, M. A. & Milner, A. D. Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci. 15, 20–25 (1992).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Mishkin, M., Ungerleider, L. G. & Macko, K. A. Object vision and spatial vision: two cortical pathways. Trends Neurosci. 6, 414–417 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  153. Saxe, R., Tzelnic, T. & Carey, S. Five-month-old infants know humans are solid, like inanimate objects. Cognition 101, B1–B8 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Cacchione, T. & Amici, F. Cohesion as a principle for perceiving objecthood: does it apply to animate agents? Swiss J. Psychol. 74, 217–228 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  155. Leslie, A. M. Infant perception of a manual pick-up event. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 2, 19–32 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  156. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  157. Adibpour, P. & Hochmann, J.-R. Infants’ understanding of the causal power of agents and tools. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2309669120 (2023).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  158. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G. & Bíró, S. Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition 56, 165–193 (1995).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Liu, S. & Spelke, E. S. Six-month-old infants expect agents to minimize the cost of their actions. Cognition 160, 35–42 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Csibra, G., Bíró, S., Koós, O. & Gergely, G. One-year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productively. Cogn. Sci. 27, 111–133 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  162. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Rizzolatti, G. & Sinigaglia, C. The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: interpretations and misinterpretations. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 264–274 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Wurm, M. F. & Caramazza, A. Two ‘what’ pathways for action and object recognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 26, 103–116 (2022).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Lingnau, A. & Downing, P. E. The lateral occipitotemporal cortex in action. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 268–277 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Leshinskaya, A., Wurm, M. F. & Caramazza, A. in The Cognitive Neurosciences 6th edn (eds Poeppel, D. et al.) 755–764 (MIT Press, 2020).

  169. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Grafton, S. T. & Hamilton, A. F. Evidence for a distributed hierarchy of action representation in the brain. Hum. Mov. Sci. 26, 590–616 (2007).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  171. Gallivan, J. P. & Culham, J. C. Neural coding within human brain areas involved in actions. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 33, 141–149 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  173. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Rizzolatti, G. & Matelli, M. Two different streams form the dorsal visual system: anatomy and functions. Exp. Brain Res. 153, 146–157 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  178. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  180. Csibra, G. & Volein, Á. Infants can infer the presence of hidden objects from referential gaze information. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 26, 1–11 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  181. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  182. Brooks, R. & Meltzoff, A. N. The importance of eyes: how infants interpret adult looking behavior. Dev. Psychol. 38, 958–966 (2002).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  183. Repacholi, B. M. & Gopnik, A. Early reasoning about desires: evidence from 14- and 18-month-olds. Dev. Psychol. 33, 12–21 (1997).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  185. Wu, Y., Merrick, M. & Gweon, H. Expecting the unexpected: infants use others’ surprise to revise their own expectations. Open Mind 8, 67–83 (2024).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  186. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  187. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  190. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Greene, J. D. et al. Pushing moral buttons: the interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition 111, 364–371 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Jara-Ettinger, J., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Schulz, L. E. Not so innocent: toddlers’ inferences about costs and culpability. Psychol. Sci. 26, 633–640 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. Buckwalter, W. & Turri, J. Inability and obligation in moral judgment. PLoS ONE 10, e0136589 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  194. Vogeley, K. Two social brains: neural mechanisms of intersubjectivity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 372, 20160245 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  195. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  196. Hamilton, A. F. de C. & Grafton, S. T. Goal representation in human anterior intraparietal sulcus. J. Neurosci. 26, 1133–1137 (2006).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  197. Ramsey, R. & Hamilton, F. C. Triangles have goals too: understanding action representation in left aIPS. Neuropsychologia 48, 2773–2776 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  201. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. Vogeley, K. et al. Neural correlates of first-person perspective as one constituent of human self-consciousness. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16, 817–827 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  203. Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  204. Poldrack, R. A. et al. The past, present, and future of the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS). Imaging Neurosci. 2, 1–19 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  205. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  206. Baker, C. L., Saxe, R. & Tenenbaum, J. B. Action understanding as inverse planning. Cognition 113, 329–349 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. Gerstenberg, T. & Tenenbaum, J. B. in Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning (ed. Waldmann, M. R.) 515–548 (Oxford Academic, 2017).

  208. Jern, A., Lucas, C. G. & Kemp, C. People learn other people’s preferences through inverse decision-making. Cognition 168, 46–64 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  209. Dennett, D. The Intentional Stance (MIT Press, 1987).

  210. Jara-Ettinger, J. & Schachner, A. Traces of our past: the social representation of the physical world. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 33, 334–340 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  211. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  212. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  213. Gerstenberg, T. Counterfactual simulation in causal cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 28, 924–936 (2024).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  214. Ho, M. K., Saxe, R. & Cushman, F. Planning with theory of mind. Trends Cogn. Sci. 26, 959–971 (2022).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  215. Warneken, F., Chen, F. & Tomasello, M. Cooperative activities in young children and chimpanzees. Child. Dev. 77, 640–663 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  216. Begus, K. & Southgate, V. Infant pointing serves an interrogative function. Dev. Sci. 15, 611–617 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  217. Warneken, F. & Tomasello, M. Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science 311, 1301–1303 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  218. Svetlova, M., Nichols, S. R. & Brownell, C. A. Toddlers’ prosocial behavior: from instrumental to empathic to altruistic helping. Child. Dev. 81, 1814–1827 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  219. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  220. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  221. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  222. 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).

  223. Stojnić, G., Gandhi, K., Yasuda, S., Lake, B. M. & Dillon, M. R. Commonsense psychology in human infants and machines. Cognition 235, 105406 (2023).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  224. Rabinowitz, N. et al. In Proc. 35th Int. Conf. Machine Learning (eds Dy, J. & Krause, A.) Vol. 80, 4218–4227 (PMLR, 2018).

  225. Baillargeon, R. in Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (ed. Goswami, U.) 47–83 (Blackwell, 2002).

  226. Baillargeon, R., Needham, A. & Devos, J. The development of young infants’ intuitions about support. Early Dev. Parent. 1, 69–78 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  227. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  228. Hubbard, T. L. The possibility of an impetus heuristic. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 29, 2015–2033 (2022).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  229. Parkinson, C., Liu, S. & Wheatley, T. A common cortical metric for spatial, temporal, and social distance. J. Neurosci. 34, 1979–1987 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  230. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  231. Powell, L. J. Adopted utility calculus: origins of a concept of social affiliation. Persp. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1215–1233 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  232. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  233. Thomas, A. J. Cognitive representations of social relationships and their developmental origins. Behav. Brain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X24001328 (2024).

  234. Mascaro, O. & Csibra, G. Representation of stable social dominance relations by human infants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 6862–6867 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  235. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  236. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  237. Meristo, M. & Surian, L. Do infants detect indirect reciprocity? Cognition 129, 102–113 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  238. 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).

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  239. Choi, Y.-J. & Luo, Y. 13-month-olds’ understanding of social interactions. Psychol. Sci. 26, 274–283 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  240. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  241. Binnie, L. & Williams, J. Intuitive psychology and physics among children with autism and typically developing children. Autism 7, 173–193 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  242. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  243. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  244. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  245. Kamps, F. S. et al. Dissociating intuitive physics from intuitive psychology: evidence from Williams syndrome. Cognition 168, 146–153 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  246. Sparaci, L., Stefanini, S., Marotta, L., Vicari, S. & Rizzolatti, G. Understanding motor acts and motor intentions in Williams syndrome. Neuropsychologia 50, 1639–1649 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  247. Boria, S. et al. Intention understanding in autism. PLoS ONE 4, e5596 (2009).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  248. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  249. Leslie, A. M. & Frith, U. Autistic children’s understanding of seeing, knowing and believing. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 6, 315–324 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  250. Leslie, A. M. & Thaiss, L. Domain specificity in conceptual development: neuropsychological evidence from autism. Cognition 43, 225–251 (1992).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  251. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  252. 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).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  253. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  254. Goldenberg, G. & Spatt, J. The neural basis of tool use. Brain 132, 1645–1655 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  255. Malle, B. F. Moral judgments. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72, 293–318 (2021).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  256. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  257. 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).

  258. Greene, J. D. in The Moral Brain: A Multidisciplinary Perspective (eds Decety, J. & Wheatley, T.) Ch. 12 (MIT Press, 2015).

  259. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  260. Young, L. & Dungan, J. Where in the brain is morality? Everywhere and maybe nowhere. Soc. Neurosci. 7, 1–10 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  261. Inagaki, K. & Hatano, G. Vitalistic causality in young children’s naive biology. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 356–362 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  262. Carey, S. Conceptual Change in Childhood (MIT Press, 1985).

  263. Morris, S. C., Taplin, J. E. & Gelman, S. A. Vitalism in naive biological thinking. Dev. Psychol. 36, 582–595 (2000).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  264. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

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

Correspondence to Shari Liu.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00514-1

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing