ArticlePloS one2025
Co-representation breaks down beyond the dyad in UK adults.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cooperation is so deeply embedded in human psychology that we spontaneously track a partner's task as well as our own when acting in a pair. This automatic 'co-representation' of a partner's mental representation of their task has been argued to be key to the sophisticated social coordination we see in human adults. However, our day-to-day encounters are not limited to one-to-one interactions. This is the first published study to investigate co-representation in groups, with results from a group Joint Simon task suggesting that co-representation may break down in groups larger than two. Exploratory analyses also suggested a complex interplay between spatial and social relationships between individual members within a group. We propose a novel hypothesis based on these findings: when we lack the capacity to track everyone in a group, we may be able to selectively track those who are the most salient or relevant. This provides key information about the limits of our capacity to keep others in mind, and the psychological underpinnings of how we do so.
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.