ArticlePloS one2020
Predictors of performance on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing social cognition in patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls using the reading the mind in the eyes test (RMET): a systematic review and meta-regression.Psychological medicine · 2024Pooled it
- On the Relationship Between Alexithymia and Social Cognition: A Systematic Review.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2024Review
- Autistic traits and anthropomorphism: the case of vehicle fascia perception.Cognitive processing · 2024Article
- Reading the mind in the eyes and cognitive ability in schizophrenia- and autism spectrum disorders.Psychological medicine · 2023Article
- Discrepancy between high non-verbal intelligence and low accuracy at reading emotional expressions in the eyes reflects the magnitude of social-emotional difficulties in autism.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2023Article
- The non-human animal reading the mind in the eyes test (NARMET): A new measure for the assessment of social cognition.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- What Do You Have in Mind? Measures to Assess Mental State Reasoning in Neuropsychiatric Populations.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We explored factors associated with performance on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET). 180 undergraduate students completed the human RMET requiring forced-choice mental state judgment; a control human Age Eyes Test (AET) requiring age judgment; a Cat Eyes Test (CET) requiring mental state judgment; and measures of executive function, empathy and psychopathology. Versions of the CET and AET were created that matched the RMET for difficulty (accuracy 71%). RMET and CET performance were strongly correlated after accounting for AET performance. Working memory, schizotypal personality and empathy predicted RMET accuracy but not CET scores. Liking dogs predicted higher accuracy on all eyes tasks, whereas liking cats predicted greater mentalizing but reduced emotional expression. Importantly, we replicated our core findings relating to accuracy and correlations between the CET and RMET in a second sample of 228 students. In conclusion, people can apply similar skills when interpreting cat and human expressions. As RMET and CET performance were found to be differentially affected by executive function and psychopathology, the use of social cognitive measures featuring non-human animals may be of particular use in future clinical research.
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.