meaning. Yet, primates understand the meaning of interactions effortlessly. To meet these
computational challenges, which are even more
demanding than those of invariant object recognition, a neural machinery at least as extensive
as that for object recognition seems necessary.
Our finding that large parts of shape-selective
STS are interaction-selective and that the fine-grain pattern of interaction selectivity closely follows that of shape selectivity provides a possible
answer to the puzzle of where visual interaction
analysis takes place: The same machinery may
perform both shape and interaction analyses,
possibly parsing different results into MNS and
SIN. This organization is markedly different from
how motion activates the same region (13, 14) and
reveals how deeply interaction analysis is ingrained
in visual circuitry.
The MNS is thought to add depth to the processing of agent-object interactions by uncovering
motor intentions behind observed object-directed
actions and to do so through a process of simulation (15). Our results of broad MNS involvement across physical and social interactions can
be parsimoniously interpreted by extension; the
MNS would uncover through causal model simulations the hidden properties of physical objects
and intentional agents and automatically reveal
the wide set of affordances [action possibilities
(20)] they offer for online engagement. The MNS
would, according to this scenario, not just function in motor intention processing but play a
major role in supporting general core cognitive
functions of intuitive physics and psychology.
We report the existence of large regions of the
monkey brain exclusively engaged in social interaction analysis. The monkey ESIN parallels properties of DMN (18) and ToM systems in humans
(17) and even occupies locations very similar to
regions of intersection of human DMN and ToM.
Because of the known role of ToM areas in social
theory–driven deductions (17, 21), some parts of
the monkey ESIN might play a role in elaborating, storing, and comparing species-specific
socio-emotional scripts stipulating rules of social
conduct (4, 5), whereas other parts might deduce
inferences about other agents’ mental, emotional, and intentional states that explain their observed interactions.
The results of this study reveal a new dimension of tuning and functional organization of
the STS, redefine the role of the mirror neuron
system, and uncover the existence of a new high-level social cognition network with deep evolutionary heritage.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. F. Heider, M. Simmel, Am. J. Psychol. 57, 243–259 (1944).
2. N. Ambady, F. J. Bernieri, J. A. Richeson, Adv. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 32, 201–271 (2000).
3. E. S. Spelke, K. D. Kinzler, Dev. Sci. 10, 89–96 (2007).
4. D. Cheney, R. Seyfarth, B. Smuts, Science 234, 1361–1366 (1986).
5. T. J. Bergman, J. C. Beehner, D. L. Cheney, R. M. Seyfarth,
Science 302, 1234–1236 (2003).
6. L. R. Santos, Dev. Sci. 7, 167–174 (2004).
7. B. M. Hood, M. D. Hauser, L. Anderson, L. Santos, Dev. Sci. 2,
8. J. E. Grahe, F. J. Bernieri, J. Nonverbal Behav. 23, 253–269 (1999).
9. N. Kanwisher, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci U.S.A. 107, 11163–11170
10. D. Y. Tsao, W. A. Freiwald, T. A. Knutsen, J. B. Mandeville,
R. B. Tootell, Nat. Neurosci. 6, 989–995 (2003).
11. M. A. Pinsk, K. DeSimone, T. Moore, C. G. Gross, S. Kastner,
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 6996–7001 (2005).
12. J. Jastorff, I. D. Popivanov, R. Vogels, W. Vanduffel, G. A. Orban,
Neuroimage 60, 911–921 (2012).
13. C. Fisher, W. A. Freiwald, Curr. Biol. 25, 261–266 (2015).
14. B. E. Russ, D. A. Leopold, Neuroimage 109, 84–94 (2015).
15. G. Rizzolatti, L. Craighero, Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 27, 169–192 (2004).
16. K. Nelissen, G. Luppino, W. Vanduffel, G. Rizzolatti, G. A. Orban,
Science 310, 332–336 (2005).
17. H. L. Gallagher, C. D. Frith, Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 77–83 (2003).
18. R. B. Mars et al., Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6, 189 (2012).
19. S. J. Blakemore, J. Decety, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2, 561–567 (2001).
20. J. J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception
(Houghton Miffin, 1979).
21. I. R. Olson, A. Plotzker, Y. Ezzyat, Brain 130, 1718–1731 (2007).
This work was supported by a Human Frontier Science
Program Long-Term Fellowship (LT000418/2013-L, to J.S.),
a Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale Postdoctoral fellowship
(SPE20120523854, to J.S.), a Women&Science Postdoctoral
Fellowship (to J.S.), a Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Young
Researcher Award (to J.S.), and a Dorothy-Leet/Association
Française des Femmes Diplomées des Universités award (to J.S.);
the Center for Brains, Minds and Machines (CBMM), funded by
NSF STC award CCF-1231216; the Kavli Neural Systems Institute at
The Rockefeller University; the National Institute of Mental
Health of NIH (R01MH105397, to W.A.F.); the McKnight Foundation
(to W.A.F.), the Pew Charitable Trust (to W.A.F.); The New York
Stem Cell Foundation (to W.A.F.); and the National Eye Institute of
NIH (R01 EY021594 to W.A.F.). W.A.F. is a New York Stem Cell
Foundation–Roberston Investigator. We thank A. Ebihara,
M. Fabiszak, C. Fisher, R. Huq, S. M. Landi, S. Sadagopan,
C. M. Schwiedrzik, S. V. Shepherd, and W. Zarco for help with
animal training, data collection, and discussion of methods;
C. Fisher and C. M. Schwierdzik for communicating coordinates of
areas MD, TPO, PGm, and dMPFC; D. Amaral and C. J. Machado
for sharing video material; E. Kirsch, S. M. Landi, and
S. V. Shepherd for help with stimulus preparation; B. Deen for
comments on the manuscript; and L. Diaz, A. Gonzalez, and
S. Rasmussen for veterinary and technical care. The content is
solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily
represent the official views of NIH. Data are available from the
Dryad Digital Repository: http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.321kr.
Materials and Methods
Figs. S1 to S6
Movies S1 to S3
20 December 2016; accepted 24 April 2017
21st-century rise in anthropogenic
nitrogen deposition on a remote
Haojia Ren,1 Yi-Chi Chen,1 Xingchen T. Wang,2† George T. F. Wong,3,4 Anne L. Cohen,5
Thomas M. DeCarlo,5‡§ Mira A. Weigand,2 Horng-Sheng Mii,6 Daniel M. Sigman2
With the rapid rise in pollution-associated nitrogen inputs to the western Pacific, it has
been suggested that even the open ocean has been affected. In a coral core from Dongsha
Atoll, a remote coral reef ecosystem, we observe a decline in the 15N/14N of coral skeleton–
bound organic matter, which signals increased deposition of anthropogenic atmospheric
N on the open ocean and its incorporation into plankton and, in turn, the atoll corals. The
first clear change occurred just before 2000 CE, decades later than predicted by other
work. The amplitude of change suggests that, by 2010, anthropogenic atmospheric N
deposition represented 20 ± 5% of the annual N input to the surface ocean in this region,
which appears to be at the lower end of other estimates.
Nitrogen is one of the essential nutrients limiting phytoplankton growth throughout much of the low-latitude surface ocean. Bio- logically available nitrogen, or fixed N, is primarily supplied to the surface ocean from
nutrient-rich subsurface water, but it is also added
by in situ biological N fixation and atmospheric
deposition. Atmospheric transport and deposition
of reactive nitrogen (nitrogen oxides, ammonium
and/or ammonia, and N-bearing organic com-
pounds) is an increasingly important source of
fixed N to open-ocean surface waters, owing to
the rapid increase in emissions from fertilizer
usage and combustion of fossil fuels. Model esti-
mates suggest that N input from the atmosphere
to the open ocean has more than doubled over
the past 100 years, accounting for up to one-third
of the ocean’s external N supply (1). This dramatic
increase in anthropogenic atmospheric N (AAN)
has been calculated to have increased ocean
productivity by 3% globally (1) and up to 25%
SCIENCE sciencemag.org 19 MAY 2017 • VOL 356 ISSUE 6339 749
1Department of Geosciences, National Taiwan University, Taipei,
Taiwan. 2Department of Geosciences, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. 3Research Center for Environmental
Changes, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. 4Department of
Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion
University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA. 5Department of Geology
and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods
Hole, MA 02543, USA. 6Department of Earth Sciences, National
Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
*Corresponding author. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org †Present
address: Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA. ‡Present
address: School of Earth Sciences and Oceans Institute, The
University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia,
Australia. §Present address: Australian Research Council Centre of
Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, The University of Western
Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.
RESEARCH | REPORTS