Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory of mind (ToM) is defined as the ability to imagine and reason about states of mind that others hold. This skill is essential for functioning in the social world and core deficits in ToM are seen in the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) population. Recent studies have shown ToM to be functionally lateralized on the right side of the brain, specifically located in the right temporoparietal junction (RTPJ; Saxe & Wexler, 2005). This study examined to what extent ToM is right lateralized, and sought to test the right lateralization account with a behavioural study. A series of 3 experiments were performed, which compared participants’ reaction times to ToM information presented to the left and right visual fields and motor responses with left and right hands. Based on well-established findings of the motor advantages of one’s dominant hand (Annett, 1970), a right hand advantage on the present task was predicted if ToM is bilaterally distributed across the two sides of the brain. However, if ToM is right lateralized, the left hand should receive its own advantage because the right hemisphere controls it, which predicts that the left hand should be as fast as, if not faster, than the right hand. No significant differences between the two presentation sides or responding hands were found, thus providing moderate support for the right lateralization of ToM. The implications of this in terms of the ASD population are discussed, as well as suggestions for future research that will build upon this finding.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".