Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42459252›Full record

ArticleComputational brain & behavior2025

Human Mentalizing as Rational Probabilistic Inference.

Shanshan Zhang, Andrew Howes, Jussi P P Jokinen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational brain & behavior, 2025. 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.

Shanshan ZhangDepartment of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, Pietari Kalmin katu, Helsinki, 00560 Finland.
Andrew HowesDepartment of Computer Science, University of Exeter, North Park Road, Exeter, EX4 4QF Devon UK.
Jussi P P JokinenFaculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, Seminaarinkatu, Jyväskylä, 40014 Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans demonstrate a remarkable ability to infer the mental states of others by observing their actions, a phenomenon known as mentalizing. Computational models of mentalizing suggest that observed behavior is assumed to be driven by strategies that are chosen so as to maximize utility, given goals, abilities, environment, and capacity limitations. While a number of studies have supported this rational view of mentalizing, little work has been done on the question of how intrinsic uncertainty in the required inferences is accounted for and used. Our paper builds on existing literature by utilizing Bayesian inference to theorize how prior assumptions and observed behavior are employed to generate a probabilistic mental state inference that involves uncertainty and how the inference is adapted to a new environment to estimate the probability of future behavior. Besides jointly inferring the preference and cost in first experiment, in the second experiment, we examine the human ability to make probabilistic estimations of future behaviors based on observed behavior. The third experiment extends this analysis by investigating how uncertainty can be mitigated by integrating multiple observations. Flexibility test is included in the second and the third experiment to validate the computational rational assumption. The work contributes to computational accounts of mentalizing under uncertainty. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42113-025-00244-w.

Indexed as

Bayesian inferenceComputational cognitive modelingComputational rationalityMentalizationTheory of mind

Identifiers

PMID42459252
PMCPMC13298678

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.