Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39534470›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Does ChatGPT have a typical or atypical theory of mind?

Margherita Attanasio, Monica Mazza, Ilenia Le Donne, Francesco Masedu, Maria Paola Greco, Marco Valenti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Margherita Attanasio *Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Monica Mazza *Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Ilenia Le DonneDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Francesco MaseduDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Maria Paola GrecoDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Marco ValentiDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, to imitate human behavioral patterns have been attracting growing interest from experimental psychology. Although ChatGPT can successfully generate accurate theoretical and inferential information in several fields, its ability to exhibit a Theory of Mind (ToM) is a topic of debate and interest in literature. Impairments in ToM are considered responsible for social difficulties in many clinical conditions, such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Some studies showed that ChatGPT can successfully pass classical ToM tasks, however, the response style used by LLMs to solve advanced ToM tasks, comparing their abilities with those of typical development (TD) individuals and clinical populations, has not been explored. In this preliminary study, we administered the Advanced ToM Test and the Emotion Attribution Task to ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT-4 and compared their responses with those of an ASD and TD group. Our results showed that the two LLMs had higher accuracy in understanding mental states, although ChatGPT-3.5 failed with more complex mental states. In understanding emotional states, ChatGPT-3.5 performed significantly worse than TDs but did not differ from ASDs, showing difficulty with negative emotions. ChatGPT-4 achieved higher accuracy, but difficulties with recognizing sadness and anger persisted. The style adopted by both LLMs appeared verbose, and repetitive, tending to violate Grice's maxims. This conversational style seems similar to that adopted by high-functioning ASDs. Clinical implications and potential applications are discussed.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceautism spectrum disorderChatGPTemotionlarge language modelsTheory of mind

Identifiers

PMID39534470
PMCPMC11554496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.