ArticlePsychological research2025
Level-1-visual perspective taking for human and robot avatars.
Article in Psychological research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research on level 1 visual perspective taking (L1-VPT) has been debating whether L1-VPT is an implicit socially rooted or rather a non-social process. Using online versions of the Dot Perspective Task by Samson et al. (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1255-1266, 2010) we approached this question by comparing L1-VPT for robot vs. human avatars. In line with the assumption that visual perspective taking is due to mentalizing, we predicted that perspective taking, leading to altercentric intrusions, should occur more strongly for the human avatars than for the robot avatars. In two experiments, a within-participant design was applied: 2 (avatar: human vs. robot) × 2 (avatar perspective: consistent vs. inconsistent) × 2 (task: avatar perspective vs. self-perspective). The human avatar was a male in Experiment 1 (n = 120) and a female in Experiment 2 (n = 113). The analyses of reaction times and error rates showed significant, medium to large egocentric intrusions and significant, small to medium altercentric intrusions for both avatar types, suggesting interference from the irrelevant perspective. Against the prediction, the altercentric intrusions for human avatars were not significantly larger than for robot avatars. Taking into account methodological concerns and suggesting future experimental variations, we argue that the submentalizing approach assuming that visual perspective taking is based on domain general processes provides a good explanation for our results.
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.