Examining the “reading the mind in the eyes test” as an assessment of subtle differences in affective theory of mind after concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This research examined affective theory of mind (ToM) differences between university students with and without a history of concussion using the revised Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET). Although, previous studies have shown that affective ToM is subserved by the ventromedial prefrontal cortex – a region that is vulnerable in head injury – few have examined whether subtle deficits in affective ToM are evident after concussion. Given the RMET’s sensitivity to affective deficits following moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury, the current study examined its validity following concussion and its correlation with related ToM measures and constructs, such as empathy.Method: Seventy-seven students with and without a history of self-reported concussion completed the RMET, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, a novel Perspective-Taking Task, and the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy. Indices of spelling/reading capabilities were obtained and baseline electrodermal activation was recorded as an index of arousal.Results: RMET performance did not differ between individuals with and without a prior concussion when controlling for sex and spelling/reading skills and was not correlated with other measures of affective ToM, empathy, and arousal. However, spelling/reading skills were found to be a predictor of RMET performance among both concussion and no-concussion groups.Conclusions: Together, these findings imply that the RMET is not sensitive to ToM impairments after concussion and may be related to language skills among neurotypical students.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".