Communicative Perspective-Taking Performance of Adults With ADHD Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The ability to take the perspective of one's conversational partner is essential for successful communication. Given the significant cognitive and attention resources required to use another's perspective, the authors assessed whether adults who report symptoms of ADHD would have difficulty using their conversational partner's visual perspective to guide their interpretations. METHOD: Adults with high (clinical range) or low (nonclinical range) self-reported ADHD symptoms participated in a communication task that required perspective-taking. RESULTS: Eye movement measures revealed that individuals with high ADHD symptoms fixated on objects obscured from their partners' view more often than did those participants with low ADHD symptoms, and the degree to which this "egocentric" object was considered correlated with the degree of inattention symptoms. However, overt behavior (object choice) was not impacted by ADHD symptomatology. CONCLUSION: Individuals with high levels of ADHD symptoms, especially inattention, are less efficient in their ability to use another's perspective during conversation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".