"Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test": Development of a Russian-Language Version Expanded for Neuroimaging Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) is a widely used tool for assessing affective mentalization in both clinical and research contexts. Although translated into many languages, no validated Russian-language version has been available. Furthermore, the limited number of stimuli in the original RMET constrains its applicability in neuroimaging studies. This study presents an open-access, expanded Russian adaptation of the RMET, suitable for psychological and neurophysiological research. In Study 1, 212 participants completed an online labeling task, from which we selected 144 stimuli with target emotion recognition accuracy of at least 50%. In Study 2, involving 108 participants, the mean accuracy for these stimuli was 71%, with a strong correlation to the results of Study 1. Participants also completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-26) and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Bayesian modeling revealed that higher TAS-26 and Personal Distress scores predicted lower RMET accuracy, whereas higher Fantasy scores predicted better performance. These relationships were consistent across sexes and aligned with findings from previous research. The results confirm the construct validity of the expanded Russian RMET and support its use for investigating emotion recognition in Russian-speaking populations, particularly in neuroimaging studies requiring increased statistical power.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".