Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39764078›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

What are they all doing in that restaurant? Perspectives on the use of theory of mind.

Ilaria Gabbatore, Francesca M Bosco, Maurizio Tirassa

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Ilaria GabbatoreDepartment of Humanities, GIPSI Research Group, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Francesca M BoscoDepartment of Psychology, GIPSI Research Group, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Maurizio TirassaNeuroscience Institute of Turin, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

If "theory of mind" is conceived as reasoning in a strict sense, then it can be said to be useful only at certain times; however, this leaves the rest of social cognition hardly comprehensible. If "theory of mind" is used instead to refer to a mentalist ontology and the consequent awareness that we ourselves and the others function on mental states, then we need new approaches that explain the flow of social experience. To illustrate these points, we outline the general conceptual framework that underlies most empirical studies of theory of mind and discuss their pros and cons; then, we discuss the Theory of Mind Assessment Scale, a tool developed to investigate the complexity of theory of mind, which adopts a different perspective and has been successfully tested on numerous populations.

Indexed as

assessment toolsmental statessocial cognitiontheory of mindTh.o.m.a.s.

Identifiers

PMID39764078
PMCPMC11702225

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.