Gaze patterns and brain activations in humans and marmosets in the Frith-Happé theory-of-mind animation task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Theory of Mind (ToM) refers to the ability to ascribe mental states to other individuals. This process is so strong that it extends even to the attribution of mental states to animations depicting interacting simple geometric shapes, such as in the Frith-Happé animations in which two triangles move either purposelessly (Random condition), or as if one triangle is reacting to the other triangle’s mental state (ToM condition). Currently, there is no evidence that nonhuman primates attribute mental states to moving abstract shapes. Here we investigated whether highly social marmosets ( Callithrix jacchus ) process ToM and Random Frith-Happé animations differently. Our results show that marmosets and humans (1) follow more closely one of the triangles during the observation of ToM compared to Random animations, and (2) activate large and comparable brain networks when viewing ToM compared to Random animations. These findings indicate that marmosets, like humans, process ToM animations differently from Random animations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".