ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Cognitive and Emotional Determinants of Automatic Perspective Taking in Healthy Adults.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emotional intelligence and perspective-taking as drivers of creativity among mid-level managers in commercial banks in Ecuador.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- EEG correlates of egocentric and altercentric biases in forensic cases with borderline personality.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Seeing in my way or your way: impact of intelligence, attention, and empathy on brain reactivity.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies using the dot-perspective task postulated that people automatically take into account others' perspective even when it prevents them from achieving their own goals. This human ability may be of key importance for the ascription of mental states and social interactions. The cognitive and emotional determinants of automatic perspective taking (APT) is still matter of debate. To address this issue, we examined the performance in the Samson et al. APT task in 91 healthy adults who underwent a detailed neuropsychological testing including assessment of their general intelligence (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, WAIS), attention and impulsivity (Conners' Continuous Performance Test-II, CPT-II), alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale, TAS), and measures of affective empathy and explicit theory of mind (Geneva Social Cognition Scale, GeSoCS, and mini-Social cognition and Emotional Assessment, mini-SEA). Univariate and multiple linear regression models (adjusted for age, gender, and education) were used to explore the association between mean reaction times (respectively, mean number of errors) in the APT task, and the CPT-II parameters, WAIS global score (as well as subscale scores), TAS, and GeSoCS and mini-SEA scores. Only the CPT-II parameters were significantly associated with the mean reaction times. Increased omissions, commissions, and detectability as well as hit reaction time standard error in CPT-II were all related to worse performances both in Self and Other conditions. The mean number of errors was negatively associated with the GeSoCS score. Among the variables studied, only CPT-II parameters had a significant impact on egocentric and altercentric interference. Neither global intelligence nor alexithymia have an effect on dot-perspective task performance. The present findings suggest that people with lower attentional resources and increased impulsivity display worse performances in the APT task and are less responsive to both egocentric and altercentric interference.
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.