ArticlePsychiatry investigation2020
Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test: Relationship with Neurocognition and Facial Emotion Recognition in Non-Clinical Youths.
Article in Psychiatry investigation, 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.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Social Cognition Among People Living with HIV: Implications for Non-Social Cognition and Social Everyday Functioning.Neuropsychology review · 2025Pooled it
- An assessment of the relation between narrative productivity, subjectivity expression, emotion description, and ToM abilities in healthy aging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Eye tracking based clustering using the Korean version of the reading the mind in the eyes test.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Epigenetic modulation of social cognition: exploring the impact of methylation in brain-derived neurotrophic factor and oxytocin receptor genes across sex.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reading the mind in the eyes and cognitive ability in schizophrenia- and autism spectrum disorders.Psychological medicine · 2023Article
- The Relationship between Face Processing, Cognitive and Affective Empathy.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The effects of face coverings, own-ethnicity biases, and attitudes on emotion recognition.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) is a common measure of the Theory of Mind. Previous studies found a correlation between RMET performance and neurocognition, especially reasoning by analogy; however, the nature of this relationship remains unclear. Additionally, neurocognition was shown to play a significant role in facial emotion recognition. This study is planned to examine the nature of relationship between neurocognition and RMET performance, as well as the mediating role of facial emotion recognition.
methodsOne hundred fifty non-clinical youths performed the RMET. Reasoning by analogy was tested by Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) and facial emotion recognition was assessed by the Korean Facial Expressions of Emotion (KOFEE) test. The percentile bootstrap method was used to calculate the parameters of the mediating effects of facial emotion recognition on the relationship between SPM and RMET scores.
resultsSPM scores and KOFEE scores were both statistically significant predictors of RMET scores. KOFEE scores were found to partially mediate the impact of SPM scores on RMET scores.
conclusionThese findings suggested that facial emotion recognition partially mediated the relationship between reasoning by analogy and social cognition. This study highlights the need for further research for individuals with serious mental illnesses.
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.