ArticleAutism : the international journal of research and practice2020
Mentalising and conversation-following in autism.
Article in Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examining whether adults with autism spectrum disorder encounter multiple problems in theory of mind: a study based on meta-analysis.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Pooled it
- Preserved but Un-Sustained Responses to Bids for Dyadic Engagement in School-Age Children with Autism.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Some people with autism spectrum disorders have been observed to experience difficulties with making correct inferences in conversations in social situations. However, the nature and origin of their problem is rarely investigated. This study used manipulations of video stimuli to investigate two questions. The first question was whether it is the number of people involved in social situations, that is, the source of problems in following conversations, or whether it is the increased mentalising demands required to comprehend interactions between several people. The second question asked was whether the nature and pattern of the errors that autism spectrum disorder participants show are the same as typically developing people make when they make an error. In total, 43 typically developed adults and 30 adults diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder were studied. We found that it was the amount of mentalising required, rather than the number of people involved, which caused problems for people with autism spectrum disorder in following conversations. Furthermore, the autism spectrum disorder participants showed a more heterogeneous pattern of errors, showing less agreement among themselves than the typically developed group as to which test items were hardest. So, fully understanding the observed behaviour consequent upon weakness in mentalising ability in people with autism spectrum disorders requires consideration of factors other than mentalising.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.