Prospective associations between maternal mind-mindedness, child theory of mind, and brain morphology in school-aged children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mentalizing is defined as the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others. In the context of parental behavior, parents' tendency to comment on their child's mental activities refers to the concept of mind-mindedness (MM). MM has been positively associated with various developmental outcomes in children, notably their own ability to mentalize, known as theory of mind (ToM). Although parental (MM) and child (ToM) mentalizing have important implications during childhood, their associations with children's neural structures are largely unknown. Among 62 mother-child dyads, maternal MM was rated from free-play sequences when children were aged 1 year, child ToM was assessed using a first-order false-belief task at 4 years of age, and structural MRI images were acquired at 10 years of age. Maternal MM was positively associated with gray matter volumes (GMV) in the dorsal prefrontal cortex and the superior temporal pole. Child ToM abilities were positively associated with GMV in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Though cortical regions associated with MM and ToM showed no anatomical overlap, many are functionally connected through a neural network highly involved in self-referential strategies for mentalizing. These findings suggest that MM and ToM may contribute to distinct sub-processes that collectively support social cognition development.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".