Search

This paper presents arguments and evidence from psychology and neuroscience supporting Lipton's 2004 claim that scientists create knowledge through an abductive process that he calls "Inference to the Best Explanation". The paper develops two conclusions. Conclusion 1 is that without conscious effort on our part, our brains use a process very similar to abduction as a powerful way of interpreting sensory information. To support Conclusion 1, evidence from psychology and neuroscience is presented that suggests that what we humans perceive through our senses is not reality, but rather, our 'brain's "best guess" of the causes of its sensory input. The implication of this best guessing is that our brains use a process very similar to abduction throughout our lives to inform us of what is happening in the world around us. In addition, an argument based on Darwinian evolution is presented claiming that our brains do an excellent job of interpreting sensory information from the outside world. (If they did not, we, as a species, could hardly have survived.) Combining these two claims leads to Conclusion 1. Building on Conclusion 1, Conclusion 2 is that Lipton and others are correct in claiming that scientists use abduction when creating scientific theories. Abduction must be strong, because Nature chose abduction for its own sensemaking purposes. This paper's contribution to knowledge is in pointing out that recent psychological and neuroscientific research has major implications for the philosophical world's confidence in the probable validity of abductive inference. The punchline is simple: Nature chose abduction! [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Educate the head only, you are likely to end up with characters who will preoccupy their minds with the annihilation of the entire human race. Educate the heart only and you will end up with individuals who cannot take decisions dispassionately or without sentiments and who may be lacking in critical thinking abilities. Educate the hands only and there is no telling what it could be up to. We would be creating robots, who as is the current fear with robots, may decide to exterminate the human race because they consider humans unnecessary for their existence. Education has got to be holistic. All three dimensions of the individual, the head, the heart and the hands must be functionally educated. That is why the ancient Philosopher Aristotle noted that "Educating the mind without Educating the heart is no education at all." This paper makes a case for the education of the head, the heart and the hands, proposing an adoption of Social and emotional learning theory in the Nigerian educational system, drawing from the position of neuroscience and applying the tool of psychology. Some tips for the application of social emotional learning in the classroom are given and suggestions for learning outlined at the end of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Brazilian Journal of Education, Technology & Society (BRAJETS) / Cadernos de Educação Tecnologia e Sociedade (CETS) is the property of Brazilian Journal of Education, Technology & Society - BRAJETS and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This document is an editorial introducing a collection of articles that explore the intersection of cultural psychology and neuroscience. The articles cover various topics, such as the impact of digital technologies on brain function, the role of culture in donation behavior, and the use of machine learning to predict cognitive functions. The authors emphasize the importance of understanding cross-cultural differences in cognition and perception in a rapidly changing world. The aim of this research topic is to provide new insights and theoretical frameworks for understanding these differences in a post-pandemic world. [Extracted from the article]

Recent work in several fields of psychology has advanced understanding of how humans imaginatively construct, simulate and (pre‐)feel the future. These advances have not yet been substantively engaged in social and cultural geography. In this paper, we identify, review and begin to draw together scholarship in human geography and several subfields of psychology on the ways in which people imagine and navigate towards the future. The most influential existing work on the future in geography has concerned powerful institutional and discursive depictions of threatening times‐to‐come. In contrast, psychological and neuroscientific work on cognitive processes involved in prospection extends possibilities for a human geographical approach to the future considering how people relate to discursive imaginaries and spatial environments. Reinvigoration of the human geography‐psychology nexus can further critical understanding of the spatialities through which futures are imaginatively formed and felt by individuals, and are thereby brought into the realm of political and social possibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current paper aimed to analyze quantitatively the trends of four major schools of thought in scientific Psychology (neuroscience, cognitivism, behaviorism, psychoanalysis) and their intersections, covering the period from 1979 to 2020. We utilized a rigorous methodology across three distinct sources: Mainstream Psychology (MP), Highly Influential Journal (HIJ), and non-English papers (NEP). Our findings align with previous research in two aspects: psychoanalysis and behaviorism have significantly declined, cognitivism remains a prominent trend. However, we deviate from prior studies by recognizing that neuroscience may be considered the most influential trend and that trends exhibit less linearity than previously assumed. We also acknowledge the significance of NEP, which manifest an independent pattern as compared to the other sources and that may reveal what happens in the "periphery" of Psychology. It is noteworthy that NEP demonstrated a still lively contribution from psychoanalysis. Our study also highlights the insularity and lack of cross-fertilization among psychological subdisciplines, despite the widespread claims to the contrary. It eventually supports the inference that scientific Psychology is a non-paradigmatic or pre-paradigmatic discipline, pointing out the dominance of applied psychology and confuting the notion of overarching "grand theories". • Methodological Advancement : The paper introduces an improved methodology for analyzing trends in four major schools of thought in psychology. • Dominance of Neuroscience : Our findings suggest that neuroscience can be considered the most influential trend in scientific psychology. • Decline in Psychoanalysis and Behaviorism : Psychoanalysis and behaviorism exhibit significant declines in prominence. • Prominence of Cognitivism : Cognitivism continues to maintain a prominent position in psychology. • Stability and Dispersion : Trends in psychology exhibit more stability and dispersion than previously assumed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present article explores how the concept of metacognition has evolved, from its philosophical origins to current interdisciplinary applications. The paper transversally traces, how metacognitive theories have been integrated by various fields. First of all, is emphasized the progressive character of the development of the metacognitive theory; second, the features that establish it as an independent theory are highlighted. Finally, the article explores current and future concerns, trends and directions in research. Thus, the following discourse exploratively investigates how metacognition with its ancient history on ''thinking about thinking'', have been innovated by various current scientific fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The initial version of the article by Clithero, Karmarkar, Nave, and Plassmann (Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2024) was critiqued by open comments from a small group of scholars. Their suggestions encouraged the authors to clarify challenging relationships between brain processes and emotions, beliefs, and actions. The revision expanded fMRI and EEG to include measures of vision, facial expression, breathing, heart rhythms, and blood chemistry. The paper provides multiple avenues of joint work between neurological and psychological scholars. The comments below reflect different reactions to the final article. Wes Hutchinson acknowledges that neuroscience insights complement cognitive measures that generate explicit measures of thought, emotion, or preferences, but he warns that repeated measures over time are problematic for both types of measurement, and the inherent complexity of brain–behavior relationships is often underestimated. With both orientations, understanding the functioning of human behavior is akin to making sense of an orchestra, where the interactive blending of different instruments and musicians reflects a complex activity that generates sounds, emotions, and stories. Both consumer neuroscientists and psychologists need to broaden their paradigmatic approaches with bodily measures and advanced psychological procedures to overcome challenges to joint progress. Martin Reiman asserts that despite difficulties with measures that have different levels of abstraction or velocity, research has provided remarkable associations between brain activity and consumer behavior. Effective studies merging brain and behavior can effectively proceed with studies that differ in two dimensions: first, by altering the number of variables, and second, by shifting whether the scientific paradigm is inductive or deductive. In its simple form, the Excavation path explores brain activity when a person is exposed to specific statements or emotions. In its most challenging form, Integrative Studies generate predictions from theories that test the convergent validity of divergent measures and leverage skills from different researchers. Studies reflecting high levels on one dimension but low levels on the other can also provide fruitful research opportunities. Brian Knutson, like Reimann, counters the idea that consumer psychology has not lived up to its promises. He references studies showing that activity from very specific areas of the brain reliably predicts choices better than explicit ratings or choices. Such research generates deductions from increasingly precise neural maps that enable confirmation of theory. That said, he acknowledges that consumer neuroscience is not able to identify a brain button that would alter choice through manipulated neurostimulation. However, since human brains are similar across people, the depth of neural insights that are consistent across a small sample of 40 respondents may generate greater insights than conventional marketing research with 2000 respondents. The cost of neuroscience will further decrease with gains in reliability, validity, and generalizability, particularly if augmented with bodily measures. He acknowledges that the theoretical side has developed more slowly than applications, particularly applications that are supported by sponsoring organizations more satisfied with local insights than general models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although we are accustomed to thinking about technology as involving things—objects and processes—derived from scientific discoveries, science also creates a technology of ideas, ways of thinking both about the world and about human beings. And unlike "thing technology," "idea technology" can have powerful effects even when the ideas are false. This paper discusses false idea technology, or ideology, and suggests mechanisms by which it can have effects on both individuals and societies. It discusses neuroscience as the "next frontier" of ideology that may change our conceptions of human nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to show how teachers apply teaching and learning strategies related to the principles of the nervous system’s functions. In our view, understanding what constitutes good teaching is about identifying how it engages the underlying cognitive and neurosystemic processes within the human brain in relation to learning. Using a student self-assessment questionnaire, we have investigated several key processes involved in neurodidactics (excitation, perception, memory, and the use, transfer, and adaptation of information and/or actions). The sample consisted of 884 7–10th grade students. The results showed that students’ excitation, understanding, and consolidation of educational material are directly related to the work of the teacher and the teaching strategies they apply to attract and stimulate the student’s attention and to help the student to understand and remember information. The learning strategies used by the students reflect the learner’s learning activity, i.e., the use and application of strategies that allow internal knowledge to emerge. The consolidation of the learning material and the learning strategies used by the students was statistically significantly higher among the female participants. There are significant differences between low- and high-achieving students in terms of the effectiveness of teaching strategies for consolidation and the learning strategies applied by learners. The paper provides practical recommendations for teachers.

During the socialization process in family and school contexts, children display a wide variety of social behaviors with parents and peers. Yet the developmental trajectory, the predictors and outcomes, and the neural basis of those social behaviors are largely under-investigated. To address these problems, we invited experts in the field to submit their latest findings to tell this story. The current Special Issue is a collection of papers highlighting the complexity for various social behaviors, with a focus on the complex mechanisms that link social behaviors to child socio-emotional adjustment and mediating/moderating factors among the associations. Thirteen papers illustrate empirical work in the field, two papers present new methodological concerns, and one paper that provides a comprehensive review of the literature.

Background: The goals of laboratory experiences include developing knowledge base, research skills, and scientific communication abilities. Objective: The aim was to assess an inquiry-based laboratory activity using the model organism Caenorhabditis elegans in relation to learning goals. Method: Students in a Biopsychology laboratory course worked in groups to test the effect of various drugs (e.g., nicotine, ethanol, fluoxetine, and melatonin) on C. elegans behavior. The activity included literature review, experimental design, and a final lab report. A cumulative final exam included a synaptic communication question related to the content of the activity. Results: Students showed better retention of laboratory-related content compared to other topics from the course, as demonstrated through performance on the final exam and were able to replicate previous research demonstrating effects of drug on locomotion. However, students did not improve writing ability compared to performance on a previous American Psychological Association style lab report. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that using a student-designed, multi-week laboratory assignment in an undergraduate Biopsychology course supports the growth of psychology knowledge and the development of research skills. Teaching Implications: Instructors should consider using the described laboratory activity for biopsychology or behavioral neuroscience classes or consider similarly designed laboratory formats for other courses in Psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Crítica is the property of Instituto de Investigaciones Filosoficas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Many scientific disciplines give rise to research published under the moniker of aesthetics. For instance, both psychology and neuroscience have highly active subfields focused on aesthetics research, known as empirical aesthetics and neuroaesthetics. However, it remains unclear what aesthetics is about, and, consequently, if aesthetics research pursued by different scientific disciplines addresses common problems. It is, therefore, difficult to assess how well aesthetics is doing as a scientific enterprise, identify and compare its main subfields, and quantify its productivity. To give an unbiased account of what counts as aesthetics across scientific disciplines, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of every publication found in Web of Science tagged as aesthetics. Spanning, 1970 to 2018, the retrieved literature comprised a total of 27,159 papers, 45,832 authors, and 123 countries. Visualization and bibliometric techniques were used to investigate the main research trends and subfields, growth of publications, citation analysis, and country productivity and collaborations. From 1970 to 2018, there was a clear increase in aesthetics research over time, with a stronger growth in recent years. The retrieved documents received a total of 217,931 citations, with a mean of 8.02 citations per document (SD = 25.7). Both a cluster analysis of the data, and a comparative analysis a posteriori, revealed that the aesthetics literature clusters into distinct research areas that differ significantly in their object of interest, research productivity and impact. This finding suggests that aesthetics is better thought of as a confederate of research traditions than a whole unified by common problems and research strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we investigated the integration between neuroscience and entrepreneurship. First, we explored the concept of neuroentrepreneurship and the investigation of neuroentrepreneurship using scientific research methods. Second, we constructed a road map for entrepreneurial researchers interested in conducting neuroentrepreneurship-related research. This is an emerging research area; therefore, to more clearly analyze the dynamics of the research trends, we used a bibliometric method to capture patterns in current publications on subjects related to neuroentrepreneurship, examining papers published between 1999 and 2021 using the keywords “neuroscience” and “entrepreneurship” or “neuroentrepreneurship.” To identify the keywords, we used two academic databases—the Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index—accessed through the Web of Science website. The three keywords were identified from studies integrating neuroscience with entrepreneurship. After carefully reviewing the research papers, we identified neuroentrepreneurship as a novel research area. The outcomes of this study provide a guide for describing the theoretical connection between neuroscience and entrepreneurship. In the future, this field of study should be empirically investigated.

IntroductionIn recent years, with the popularity of many social media platforms worldwide, the role of “virtual social network platforms” in the field of cross-cultural communication has become increasingly important. Scholars in psychology and neuroscience, and cross-disciplines, are attracted to research on the motivation, mechanisms, and effects of communication on social media across cultures.Methods and AnalysisThis paper collects the co-citation of keywords in “cultural psychology,” “cross-culture communication,” “neuroscience,” and “social media” from the database of web of science and analyzes the hotspots of the literature in word cloud.ResultsBased on our inclusion criteria, 85 relevant studies were extracted from a database of 842 papers. There were 44 articles on cultural communication on social media, of which 26 were from the perspective of psychology and five from the perspective of neuroscience. There are 27 articles that focus on the integration of psychology and neuroscience, but only a few are related to cross-cultural communication on social media.ConclusionScholars have mainly studied the reasons and implications of cultural communication on social media from the perspectives of cultural psychology and neuroscience separately. Keywords “culture” and “social media” generate more links in the hot map, and a large number of keywords of cultural psychology and neuroscience also gather in the hot map, which reflects the trend of integration in academic research. While cultural characteristics have changed with the development of new media and virtual communities, more research is needed to integrate the disciplines of culture, psychology, and neuroscience.

Reinforcement learning methods have recently been very successful at performing complex sequential tasks like playing Atari games, Go and Poker. These algorithms have outperformed humans in several tasks by learning from scratch, using only scalar rewards obtained through interaction with their environment. While there certainly has been considerable independent innovation to produce such results, many core ideas in reinforcement learning are inspired by phenomena in animal learning, psychology and neuroscience. In this paper, we comprehensively review a large number of findings in both neuroscience and psychology that evidence reinforcement learning as a promising candidate for modeling learning and decision making in the brain. In doing so, we construct a mapping between various classes of modern RL algorithms and specific findings in both neurophysiological and behavioral literature. We then discuss the implications of this observed relationship between RL, neuroscience and psychology and its role in advancing research in both AI and brain science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emotional contagion between individuals can occur consciously or subconsciously. It can be understood as the copying of each other's facial expressions, voices, and movements without being aware of it, which helps individuals feel the same emotions. Modalities of expression include a complex neurological process that facilitates coordination and cooperation in social groups. Additionally, psychological aspects such as personality traits and interpersonal variables influence emotional contagion. The psyche of leaders is frequently challenged, as they must constantly appear as role models to maintain others' trust in their decisions. Our investigation finds that organizations benefit from incorporating more positive emotions through helpful and cooperative behavior, better teamwork, and job performance. Positive emotions affect all elements of emotional contagion and might contribute to improving the leader-follower relationship. The degree of attention affects the level of emotional contagion, with higher attention resulting in stronger contagion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists interested in the brain have tended to avoid studying religion or spirituality for fear of being seen as unscientific. That needs to change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers are striving to reverse-engineer artificial intelligence and scan the ‘brains’ of LLMs to see what they are doing, how and why. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides a critical review of several possible mechanisms at different levels of analysis underlying the effects and therapeutic potential of psychedelics. At the (1) biochemical level, psychedelics primarily affect the 5-HT 2A receptor, increase neuroplasticity, offer a critical period for social reward learning, and have anti-inflammatory properties. At the (2) neural level, psychedelics have been associated with reduced efficacy of thalamo-cortical filtering, the loosening of top-down predictive signaling and an increased sensitivity to bottom-up prediction errors, and activation of the claustro-cortical-circuit. At the (3) psychological level, psychedelics have been shown to induce altered and affective states, they affect cognition, induce belief change, exert social effects, and can result in lasting changes in behavior. We outline the potential for a unifying account of the mechanisms underlying psychedelics and contrast this with a model of pluralistic causation. Ultimately, a better understanding of the specific mechanisms underlying the effects of psychedelics could allow for a more targeted therapeutic approach. We highlight current challenges for psychedelic research and provide a research agenda to foster insight in the causal-mechanistic pathways underlying the efficacy of psychedelic research and therapy. • This paper comprehensively reviews the pharmacological, neural and psychological mechanisms underlying psychedelics. • We critically evaluate the merits and pitfalls of each explanatory mechanism. • We provide a research agenda for psychedelic research, including a theory of pluralistic causation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the philosophy of mind, neuroscience, and psychology, the causal relationship between phenomenal consciousness, mentation, and brain states has always been a matter of debate. On the one hand, material monism posits consciousness and mind as pure brain epiphenomena. One of its most stringent lines of reasoning relies on a 'loss-of-function lesion premise,' according to which, since brain lesions and neurochemical modifications lead to cognitive impairment and/or altered states of consciousness, there is no reason to doubt the mind-brain identity. On the other hand, dualism or idealism (in one form or another) regard consciousness and mind as something other than the sole product of cerebral activity pointing at the ineffable, undefinable, and seemingly unphysical nature of our subjective qualitative experiences and its related mental dimension. Here, several neuroscientific findings are reviewed that question the idea that posits phenomenal experience as an emergent property of brain activity, and argue that the premise of material monism is based on a logical correlation-causation fallacy. While these (mostly ignored) findings, if considered separately from each other, could, in principle, be recast into a physicalist paradigm, once viewed from an integral perspective, they substantiate equally well an ontology that posits mind and consciousness as a primal phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The neuroscience of creativity is built on a tacit and near universal assumption that is false. Paradoxically, this is not contentious; once made explicit, the assumption is readily conceded as false. Psychology regards creativity as made up of many complex, multifaceted, and varied cognitive and emotional processes deployed across many different domains. But we instead think of, and treat, creativity as if it were a single, separate, cohesive, and discrete thing—as in, Einstein had it. In a straightforward extension of this fallacy, cognitive neuroscientists have looked for uniquely creative cognition that (1) is distinct from all other kinds of cognition and (2) has a proprietary neural substrate. In other words, a standalone and monolithic creativity faculty in the brain that manages only creativity and all creativity. First, this paper brings into sharp focus the nature and ubiquity of this fallacy. It then outlines the alternative theoretical position that is (1) based on fundamental neural principles and (2) predicated on taking seriously the concept of creativity as complex and diverse. Like morality or secretiveness, it holds that creativity does not exist as its own, specialized entity in the brain. Instead, its neurocognitive mechanisms are distributed, embedded, and varied; that is, creativity is everywhere and multiply realizable.

A neuromyth is a commonly accepted but unscientific claim about brain function. Many researchers have claimed Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences (MI) theory is a neuromyth because they have seen no evidence supporting his proposal for independent brain-based intelligences for different types of cognitive abilities. Although Gardner has made claims that there are dedicated neural networks or modules for each of the intelligences, nonetheless Gardner has stated his theory could not be a neuromyth because he never claimed it was a neurological theory. This paper explains the lack of evidence to support MI theory. Most important, no researcher has directly looked for a brain basis for the intelligences. Moreover, factor studies have not shown the intelligences to be independent, and studies of MI teaching effects have not explored alternate causes for positive effects and have not been conducted by standard scientific methods. Gardner’s MI theory was not a neuromyth initially because it was based on theories of the 1980s of brain modularity for cognition, and few researchers then were concerned by the lack of validating brain studies. However, in the past 40 years neuroscience research has shown that the brain is not organized in separate modules dedicated to specific forms of cognition. Despite the lack of empirical support for Gardner’s theory, MI teaching strategies are widely used in classrooms all over the world. Crucially, belief in MI and use of MI in the classroom limit the effort to find evidence-based teaching methods. Studies of possible interventions to try to change student and teacher belief in neuromyths are currently being undertaken. Intervention results are variable: One research group found that teachers who knew more about the brain still believed education neuromyths. Teachers need to learn to detect and reject neuromyths. Widespread belief in a neuromyth does not make a theory legitimate. Theories must be based on sound empirical evidence. It is now time for MI theory to be rejected, once and for all, and for educators to turn to evidence-based teaching strategies.

In this essay, the author details their own original experiments with using the qualities of psychedelic experiences, specifically those brought on by the atypical psychedelic, salvia divinorum, to inform game design. It discusses the brief history of games designed with varying levels of influence from psychedelic drugs and culture. It details the benefits of this approach, such as the development of design strategies that are potentially useful in creating simulations that provoke empathy for symptoms of mental illness, suggesting paths for future exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

William James's lead continues to provide a balancing act of inquiry and truth with plurality and conflict. First, this article considers this balancing act in neuroscience, both what we have been learning since James published The Principles of Psychology and in how neuroscience is done. As pragmatists have long argued against dualisms and absolutes, the authors situate contemporary understanding in its historical context. Humans have evolved as brains-in-bodies-in-cultures and navigate such worlds through good-enough strategies, not a disembodied reason. Embodied intelligence is laden with instinct, habit, and emotion as much as it is about consciousness. Truth, for James, is focused on nuanced success outcomes, both modest and broad. James's sense of fallibility is critical in terms of comfort and discomfort in a social group. More prosocial behavior tends to be honest and less sociopathic, of course unless it is myopic and only in group orientation, which it often is. Understanding ourselves through the neuroscience does not answer most of the questions nor solve all the problems. However, such understanding is an important tool in aiding our coping efforts, especially regarding contemporary life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Time and timing of the brain affect almost all life's processes. It not only dictates when we sleep, but also keeps every movement and working procedure under a tight temporal scheme. In this short review, having looked over the historical background on studying time in psychology and neuroscience in the last era, three machinery clocks of the brain that allow us to function efficiently are presented. Furthermore, the overlooked possibilities for future investigations in this realm have arisen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The topic of mechanistic explanation in neuroscience has been a subject of recent discussion. There is a lot of interest in understanding what these explanations involve. Furthermore, there is disagreement about whether neurological mechanisms themselves should be viewed as reductionist in nature. In this paper I will explain how these two issues are related. I will, first, describe how mechanisms support a form of antireductionism. This is because the mechanisms that exist should be seen as involving part-whole relations, where the behavior of a whole is more than the sum of its parts. After this, I will consider mechanistic explanations and how they can be understood. While some people think the explanations concern existing entities in the world, I will argue that we can understand the explanations by viewing them in terms of arguments. Despite the fact that it is possible to understand mechanistic explanations in this manner, the antireductionist point remains.

The Uncanny Valley (UV) theory predicts that imperfectly human-like artificial agents elicit negative reactions in perceivers. While to date most studies investigating the UV have been behavioral, there is a growing number of neuroscientific studies that hold the potential of shedding light on the automatic processes related to the UV. The current paper provides a scoping review of studies using brain imaging techniques that addressed the UV. Of the total of 74 studies found in the database search, 13 met the inclusion criteria and compared the neural processing of human vs. artificial agent stimuli. Neural differences were found when processing the faces of humans and artificial agents, with reduced responses for the latter in a face-selective brain region, the fusiform face area. At the temporal level, specific event-related potential (ERP) components were susceptible to facial appearance, such as the Late Positive Potential. The studies that employed mentalizing, i.e., reasoning about other agents’ behavior, showed that different brain regions of the mentalizing network were engaged, with the temporo-parietal junction being more responsive to humans, while the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the precuneus were more responsive when reasoning about artificial agents. Some commonalities were also observed: the processing of human and artificial agent actions activated comparable brain areas in the sensorimotor cortex. Not only does this scoping review shed light on the neural processes that may underlie the UV, but it also allows for generating predictions with respect to processing differences regarding human and artificial agents.