Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30030716›Full record

SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2019

A Bayesian framework for the development of belief-desire reasoning: Estimating inhibitory power.

Lu Wang, Pernille Hemmer, Alan M Leslie

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lu WangDepartment of Psychology and Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, Rutgers, NJ, USA.
Pernille HemmerDepartment of Psychology and Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, Rutgers, NJ, USA.
Alan M LeslieDepartment of Psychology and Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, Rutgers, NJ, USA. aleslie@ruccs.rutgers.edu.

Funding

Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences BCS-0922184
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A robust empirical finding in theory-of-mind (ToM) reasoning, as measured by standard false-belief tasks, is that children four years old or older succeed whereas three-year-olds typically fail in predicting a person's behavior based on an attributed false belief. Nevertheless, when the child's own belief is undermined by increasing their subjective uncertainty about the truth, as introduced in low-demand false-belief tasks, three-year-olds can better appreciate another person's false belief. Inhibition is believed to play a critical role in such developmental patterns. Within a Bayesian framework, using meta-data, we present the first computational implementation of inhibition, as specified by the Theory of Mind Mechanism (ToMM) model, to account for both the developmental shift from three to four years of age and the change in children's performances between high-demand and low-demand false-belief tasks. A Bayesian framework enables us to evaluate the predictive power of the model and infer the underlying psychological parameters. Together with behavioral evidence, we discuss the critical role of inhibitory control, as specified by ToMM, in children's theory-of-mind development.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremChild DevelopmentCultureInhibition, PsychologicalTheory of MindChild, PreschoolCognitionHumansModels, PsychologicalMotivationBayesianComputational modelInhibitionRationalityTheory of mind

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.