ArticleCognitive processing2025
Online level-2 perspective taking for newly learnt symbols.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Humans demonstrate spontaneous sensitivity to other people's perspectives on object identities in online tasks. Evidence shows that this not only involves representing the mere discrepancy between perspectives, but the content of such perspectives as well (level-2 perspective taking/L2PT). However, this evidence comes from studies using culturally grounded symbols which leaves open the possibility that having extensive, easily accessible background knowledge about an object is necessary for the L2PT effect. Experiment 1 tested this by comparing L2PT across two groups: one performing a verification task on Arabic numbers, and one on newly learnt symbol-label pairs. In both groups, half of the visual stimuli was symmetrical, while half was asymmetrical. In both cases, there was a joint condition: participants performed the task in parallel with a partner, observing stimuli from opposite angles, thus having conflicting interpretations for asymmetric characters. Furthermore, they also performed the verification task individually, while their partner had no visual access to the stimuli. We found an interference effect in both groups. However, while the effect was stable in the number group, it diminished over time in the symbol group. Experiments 2a and 2b demonstrated that the complexity of the recently learnt symbols has an influence on spontaneous L2PT: the same procedure with more complex symbols did not elicit any interference effect. Our results show that online L2PT is not limited to objects that participants have proficiency in identifying. Nevertheless, the L2PT effect seems to diminish when participants have to process increasingly complex novel symbols.
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.