Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test 32

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Predictors of operation on the Reading the Heed in the Optics Test

• Peter C. Hansen

Predictors of performance on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test

• Clare M. Eddy,
• Peter C. Hansen

x

• Published: July 23, 2020
• https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0235529

Figures

Abstruse

We explored factors associated with performance on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET). 180 undergraduate students completed the human RMET requiring forced-choice mental state judgment; a control human being Age Eyes Examination (AET) requiring age judgment; a Cat Eyes Test (CET) requiring mental state judgment; and measures of executive office, empathy and psychopathology. Versions of the CET and AET were created that matched the RMET for difficulty (accuracy 71%). RMET and CET performance were strongly correlated after accounting for AET performance. Working memory, schizotypal personality and empathy predicted RMET accuracy only not CET scores. Liking dogs predicted higher accurateness on all eyes tasks, whereas liking cats predicted greater mentalizing just reduced emotional expression. Importantly, nosotros replicated our core findings relating to accuracy and correlations between the CET and RMET in a second sample of 228 students. In conclusion, people can apply similar skills when interpreting cat and homo expressions. As RMET and CET functioning were found to be differentially affected past executive function and psychopathology, the utilize of social cognitive measures featuring non-human animals may be of particular employ in future clinical research.

Commendation: Eddy CM, Hansen PC (2020) Predictors of performance on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test. PLoS ONE 15(seven): e0235529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235529

Editor: Marina A. Pavlova, Univdersity Hospital of TübingenUniversitatsklinikum Tubingen, Deutschland

Received: April four, 2019; Accustomed: June eighteen, 2020; Published: July 23, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Boil, Hansen. This is an open access article distributed nether the terms of the Creative Eatables Attribution License, which permits unrestricted utilize, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Information cannot exist shared publicly because at the time the data were collected explicit consent was non obtained from all participants to publicly share their data (as now required by GDPR). Therefore our upstanding permissions equally per University of Birmingham Cardinal Ethics Committee do not permit us to share the data openly inside the public domain. Nevertheless, summary information information are available for researchers who meet the criteria for admission to confidential information via the Research Governance Team at the University of Birmingham (researchgovernance@contacts.bham.air conditioning.uk).

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this piece of work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests be.

Introduction

The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) [1] assesses the ability to recognise complex mental states as expressed by human being optics. Participants pick one of four options (e.g. puzzled, nervous, insisting or wistful) which they recollect best describes what the person in each photograph is thinking or feeling. Correct answers are based on majority responses from a number of skilful judges [1] from a good for you population. Many previous studies have explored the influence of neurological and psychiatric disorders on operation. For instance, patients with autism [1, two], Parkinson's affliction [three], Huntington's disease [4, five], Tourette syndrome [6] and schizophrenia [7] have been shown to offering fewer correct (conventional) responses when compared to a salubrious command group.

The RMET could evoke higher cognitive reasoning about mental states (theory of mind), recognition of visual cues to emotion, and/or empathy. In addition to clinical symptoms, general cognitive or perceptual skills may influence performance. Previous fMRI studies take revealed activation in cortical regions and underlying structures such as superior temporal sulcus, inferior frontal gyrus, medial prefrontal cortex, hippocampus and cerebellum during the RMET [8–xi]. It is thought that RMET judgments reflect a fast, automatic process [1], and response consensus implies that the RMET measures a common homo ability or collection of skills. Given that the processes involved in the eyes task are still poorly understood, the current study aimed to explore factors related to recognition of mental states from eyes, using the RMET and two other tasks: the same behavioural task with dissimilar stimuli, and the same stimuli requiring an alternative behavioural response.

The True cat Eyes Test (CET) was created as a comparing measure for the electric current written report, and required participants to select mental states to match pairs of true cat optics. Cats were selected due to frequency of exposure to humans, and considering there were many images freely available online for developing this job. Cat eyes could be perceived to describe circuitous mental states given that the form of the human confront is like in many means to other mammals [12]. Information technology could be suggested that the CET will invoke anthropomorphism: a cognitive bias whereby people spontaneously ascribe human characteristics to a non-homo agent [thirteen]. However, while most previous studies take investigated spontaneous attribution of emotions to pets [14], the current study required participants to make a forced choice about the appropriate mental state, rather than assessing spontaneous mental country attribution. If healthy participants reach a common interpretation of each cat's mental country (equally for the homo RMET) this may imply cues to real emotion inside the images that could approximate human being expressions, or that the skills involved in mental land attribution during the RMET are not specific to man stimuli.

An advantage of developing the CET relates to previous studies in autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). Hypoactivation of the fusiform gyrus is seen in ASD in response to man faces but non animal faces [fifteen], and while typically developing children spend more time looking at human eyes than the eyes of animals including cats, children with ASD spend more fourth dimension looking at animal eyes [16]. Therefore a new mental country recognition measure out involving animate being facial features rather than human features could offer further insight into the skills of those with ASD.

The second task was the age eyes task (AET), which requires judgments about the physical land of the human RMET stimuli. The AET is of a similar difficulty to the original RMET only elicits less limbic activity than the RMET in healthy participants [17], maybe drawing upon executive function and autobiographical retentivity rather than emotional processing. The current study included two measures of executive function, predicting that executive functions would be more than closely related to performance on the AET than the RMET or CET.

Previous studies have linked RMET functioning to the Empathy Quotient (EQ) [18], the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) [19, 20] which explores cocky-reported perspective taking, and the Toronto Alexithymia Calibration (TAS-twenty) [21, 22], which measures reflection on and communication most one's ain emotions. Lyvers, Kohlsdorf, Edwards & Thorberg [23] found that high alexithymia in students predicted low empathy and poor RMET performance. Difficulties in interpreting i'south own emotions could therefore impair recognition of emotions in others. One report in undergraduates [24] found that low EQ scores were associated with loftier alexithymia and low RMET accuracy. Demers and Koven [25] report that in healthy adults RMET scores are positively correlated with emotional empathy, and negatively correlated with alexithymia. We included the EQ, IRI and TAS-20 in the electric current written report, hypothesising that lower accuracy on the RMET and CET would correlate with lower IRI scores and higher TAS scores.

Participants completed three other scales to explore eyes task performance in relation to clinical symptoms. The kickoff was the Schizotypal Personality Scale (SPQ) [26], as Irani et al. [27] found that high levels of schizotypal personality traits (e.g. social anxiety, constricted affect) were linked to poorer RMET performance. The Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory (OCI-R) [28] was included considering of there being few previous studies into the relationship betwixt these symptoms and social knowledge, despite sub-threshold obsessive and compulsive traits being mutual inside salubrious populations [29]. Finally, we included the revised Social Anhedonia Scale (rSAS) [thirty], as social anhedonia (reduced pleasure from social interactions) can be linked to both autism and alexithymia [31]. We expected high scores on these clinical scales would be related to lower accurateness on the RMET and CET.

In summary, we explored attribution of mental states on the human RMET as compared to a comparison task using cat eyes, and a matched control chore involving age judgment of RMET stimuli. We selected true cat stimuli every bit this is a mammal that is familiar to humans and nosotros wanted to utilize not-human stimuli given that evidence from previous studies suggests this could exist a useful comparison to tasks involving human stimuli, peradventure peculiarly in clinical groups [15, 16]. To offer insight into factors influencing performance on the three eyes tasks, nosotros included measures of empathy, executive functions and specific clinical symptoms. We also included a pet questionnaire to offer further insight into responses on the CET, as exposure to animals or pets may be linked to anthropomorphising and in plow emotion attribution on tasks involving animal stimuli [fourteen]. In addition, nosotros conducted psychometric analysis on the CET and AET, aiming to determine whether it was possible to apply these measures as command tasks for the RMET, matched for accuracy.

Materials and methods

Participants

This study was approved by the Academy of Birmingham Inquiry Ethics Committee and all participants gave written informed consent. Participants were 180 undergraduate Psychology students (details afterward exclusions below) without existing psychiatric/neurological diagnoses or cat phobia. We recruited as many volunteers as possible, who received course credit for participation.

Procedure

Basic instructions were given for each task earlier completion by the participant, in the order: Digit Ordering Examination-Adapted (DOT-A), Trail Making Test (TMT), pet questionnaire, IRI, TAS-xx, SPQ, OCI-R, EQ, rSAS. Participants so completed the iii computerised eyes tasks (two runs of each), presented using Presentation (Neurobehavioral Systems Inc.) software. The order of administration of these iii tasks was counterbalanced across participants and stimuli within each were in randomised guild.

Tasks

RMET.

The RMET contains 36 examination trials plus one exercise item (available from https://www.autismresearchcentre.com/arc_tests). Stimuli are photographs of human eyes, surrounded by four mental state options (Fig 1). Instructions (i) require the participant to consider the options (a glossary is available) and select the choice they think best matches what the person in the photograph is thinking or feeling. At that place is no time limit. Evidence of chore validity comes from the ability of this task to differentiate betwixt individuals with ASD and typically developing individuals (e.thou. 1). The RMET has reasonably skilful exam-retest reliability [24].

The RMET commenced with onscreen instructions to view the stimulus and pick 'the word that best describes what the person in the epitome is thinking or feeling'. Images were approximately 28cm ten 9cm high (24" monitor; resolution 1024 x 768), with response options in Arial 22 point (approximately 1cm high) exterior the corners of the image, mapped to the numeric keypad [ane, iii, 7, nine]. The first trial was initiated via pressing the spacebar. At that place was no time limit, and a response initiated the adjacent trial.

CET.

The CET was developed past one experimenter (CME) selecting online images (freely available for reuse) to match the original gear up of RMET expressions/answers, taking into business relationship visual similarity (east.g. gaze direction) where possible. The testing process was equivalent to the human RMET i.eastward. participants were asked to select the word they think all-time matched what the cat in the image was thinking or feeling (run across Fig 1).

AET.

The AET (Fig 1) used the same stimuli as the original RMET, and was devised previously [17]. Instructions and administration of the AET were equivalent to the other eyes tasks, but asked participants to choice the number that best matched the age of the eyes.

Pet questionnaire.

The pet questionnaire asked if respondents had a 'pet now' or a 'pet previously' (Y/N). Participants were likewise asked to charge per unit 'liking cats' and 'liking dogs' on a 7-point Likert scale from -3 (I hate) to +3 (I dearest).

DOT-A.

Participants heard strings of mixed upward digits (e.g. 4-8-1-3) read out by the experimenter (a pair of strings individually presented for each length of iii to 8 digits). After each they were required to speak the digits aloud in ascending order. Testing concluded when two strings of the aforementioned length were answered incorrectly, with half a point deducted from the maximum working retentivity span for one string of a pair answered correctly [32], possible range ii.5–eight digits.

TMT.

The baseline condition required participants to describe lines accurately connecting a serial of numbered circles (1–25) as quickly equally possible, keeping the pen on the page. The test condition contained numbers (1–13) and letters (A-Fifty) and participants had to swap between categories i.e. join one-A, A-2, two-B etc. The fourth dimension deviation to consummate conditions (examination–baseline) was used as an alphabetize of interference when attention shifting.

IRI.

The IRI [19, 20] contains 4 subscales each with 7 items (scored from i–5; total score range 28–140; subscales 7–28). Perspective taking (PT) assesses the tendency to adopt other people'due south points of view, and empathic business (EC) addresses feelings of warmth and consideration towards others. Loftier scores for personal distress (PD) betoken greater negative emotion when around other people in distress and the fantasy subscale measures the propensity to imagine and relate to characters in books and films.

TAS-twenty.

This alexithymia scale (possible range xx–100) demonstrates skillful reliability and validity [21, 22]. In that location are 3 subscales: difficulty identifying feelings (DIF e.g. "I have feelings that I tin't quite identify"); difficulty describing feelings (DDF east.g. "It is difficult for me to notice the right word for my feelings") and externally oriented thinking (EOT eastward.m. "I adopt to just let things happen rather than to understand why they turned out that manner"). The cut-off for non-alexithymia is below 51 and for probable alexithymia it is 61 or higher up.

SPQ.

The 74 SPQ items are grouped into nine subscales (each particular scores 0/1): constricted affect, no close friends (NCF), excessive social feet (ESA), unusual perceptual experiences (UPE), odd speech, odd beliefs or magical thinking, suspiciousness (SUS), ideas of reference, and odd/eccentric behaviours (OEB). Previous studies report skilful internal consistency, test-retest reliability and validity [26]. Three major factors accept likewise been identified [27]: cognitive perceptual (IOR, OBMT, UPE, SUS), social interpersonal (ESA, NCF, CA) and disorganization (OEB, Bone).

OCI-R.

This scale [29] contains 18 items such equally "I check things more than oft than necessary" and "I discover it hard to control my own thoughts"; responded to on a 5-point Likert scale (0–4) from 'not at all' to 'extremely'. Scores can range from 0 to 72, and the authors recommend a cut-off of 21 to bespeak likely OCD.

EQ.

The EQ [18] contains 40 empathy questions and 20 fillers. Responses are scored 0–2, resulting in a possible score of 0–80. EQ scores can be inversely correlated with ASD [18].

RSAS.

The revised rSAS [30] contains 40 items and assesses social withdrawal and lack of pleasure from social relationships due east.g. "A car ride is much more enjoyable if someone is with me"; "Having close friends is not as important every bit some people say". Suggested cut-off score is 16 for females and twenty for males (higher scores indicate greater social anhedonia).

Statistical processing

Two participants were excluded (accuracy beneath chance n = i; fast RT/depression accurateness north = 1) and a full information assail the eyes tasks was non available for a further two participants due to technical problems. A farther four participants had incomplete data on one or 2 of the behavioural scales but were included after imputation of missing values based on group mean [33]. Therefore data from 176 participants was used for analysis (16 males and 160 females, hateful age xix.65 years (SD = 1.29; range = eighteen.23–32.82). Individual outliers per task were removed (1.3% of the data) based on a reaction time (RT) ≤200msec, or >3 times SD + hateful RT.

Start we explored response consensus (i.e. accuracy) and psychometric properties, followed by partial correlations betwixt optics tasks. We then ran regression analyses with eyes chore scores as DVs and all other measures as IVs followed past mail-hoc analysis on any identified relationships.

Results

Eyes task accuracy (consensus)

Responses to each eyes task are shown in Table 1. We used the majority response beyond the whole sample every bit a correct response for the CET, and too the AET, and the correct answers provided past Baron-Cohen et al. [one] for the RMET. In society to compare the three tasks when exploring factors that influenced optics chore operation, we beginning needed to match for difficulty. We therefore selected subsets of CET and AET stimuli and then that none of the 3 optics tasks significantly differed in terms of accuracy. This resulted in a subset of xviii trials for the CET, and 16 trials for the AET. Overall accuracy was ~71% for each eyes task: lxx.77% (SE = 0.69%) for the RMET, seventy.57% (SE = 0.81%) for the CET, and lxx.51% (SE = 0.72%) for the AET. A logistic regression mixed effects model (DV: individual trial accuracy right/incorrect; stock-still factors: gender, run and condition; random effect: Participant ID) was used to make inferences well-nigh the wider population beyond the sample. This showed no pregnant effect of gender, run or task, but there was a significant interaction between run and condition (χ²(two) = 7.05, p = .03). Accuracy was greater for the age task on the first run, but this upshot was not seen for the RMET or CET. Mail hoc comparisons with Tukey correction confirmed there were no significant differences between RMET versus AET (z = -0.358, p = .932; 95% CI); RMET versus CET (z = 0.300, p = .952; 95% CI); or AET versus CET (z = -.061, p = .998; 95% CI). For some individual trials, greater accuracy was reached for the CET than the RMET (Table 1; S1 Fig).

Mean RT (seconds; collapsed across run) was iv.47s (SE = .10) for the RMET; 4.16s (SE = .08) for the CET, and three.52s (SE = .06) for the AET. A mixed effects model (DV: RT; fixed factors: age, gender, run and task; random gene: participant ID; fixed variance weighting every bit a function of RT to correct for heteroscedascity) showed a significant outcome of run (F(1, 24200) = 228.8, p<.0001) and task (F(ii, 24200) = 260.v, p<.0001) but non for gender or age; and a pregnant interaction betwixt run and chore (F(2, 24200) = 39.viii, p<.0001). Post hoc comparisons with Tukey correction (two tailed) showed a significant difference for AET versus RMET (t(24200) = -25.xx, p<.0001, 95% CI), AET versus CET (t(24200) = -14.thirteen, p<.0001, 95% CI), and RMET versus CET (t(24200) = ix.06, p<.0001, 95% CI). RT was longest for the RMET and shortest for the AET. Overall run i was slower than run 2 (t(24200) = 39.770, p<.0001, 95% CI), but the interaction was explained by this difference being nearly pronounced for the RMET. RT is not a standard measure for the RMET so we focus hereafter on accurateness.

Psychometric analysis

Overall reliability using mean Cohen'southward Kappa (between runs) was moderate for all eyes tasks, and slightly lower for the AET (0.540, SE = 0.014) and CET (0.532, SE = 0.016) than for the RMET (0.564, SE = 0.014). Paired t-tests indicated that RMET was significantly different to CET (t(175) = 2.35, p = .02) but the CET and AET were not (t(175) = 0.49, p = .62) and AET and RMET were not (t(175) = -i.54, p = .13).

Split half reliability (internal consistency) was 0.lxx for the RMET, 0.57 for the CET and 0.41 for AET; while Fleiss' Kappa for inter-rater agreement was: RMET = 0.xl; CET = 0.37; AET = 0.41 (fair agreement is 0.21–0.40 and moderate agreement is 0.40–0.60; [34]).

Fractional correlations

Mean accurateness data were calculated per participant, per task, and checked for normality using Shapiro-Wilk tests. Accuracy information for all iii Optics Tasks were non-normal. We therefore applied a Box-Cox transform to these data (λ = two) and re-tested with Shapiro-Wilk and confirmed that the information were and then normally distributed. The correlation between the RMET and CET was positive and very strong after using the AET to control for reasoning linked to physical features (Pr = .59, p<.0001). The fractional correlations between the CET and AET when controlling for the RMET (Pr = .18, p = .02), and betwixt the RMET and AET when decision-making for CET (Pr = .21, p = .005), were considerably weaker.

Predictors of eyes task accuracy

Descriptive statistics for all measures boosted to optics tasks are given in S1 Table. Data was summarized, tested for normality and transformed as explained above. To identify the all-time model predicting performance on each optics task the "leaps" R package was used to examine all subsets of possible models, from a single predictor variable upward to the maximum of 28 predictors: OCI-R score, rSAS score, EQ score, 3 TAS-20 subscales, four IRI subscales, 9 SPQ subscales (eastward.g. [35]), TMT time difference, DOT-A maximum bridge, iv pet questionnaire questions, age, gender, and RT for that eyes task). Optimal models were identified based on lowest value of Mallow'due south Cp, which is equivalent to the Akaike Information Criterion. The optimum model for RMET accuracy (F(164,eleven) = 7.06; p<.0001; adjR² = .276) contained significant predictors RT, 'pet at present', liking dogs, DOT-A, IRI FS, IRI EC, EQ, SPQ UPE (cognitive perceptual factor) and SPQ ESA (social-interpersonal factor). The best model for CET accuracy (F(169,6) = v.04; p<.0001; adjR^two = .122) contained pregnant predictors 'pet at present', disliking cats, liking dogs and IRI FS. Finally, the model for AET accuracy (F(169,6) = 5.89; p<.0001; adjR² = .143) contained significant predictors RT, liking dogs, IRI FS and TAS DDF.

Mail service hoc analysis involving predictors of eyes exam functioning

Liking dogs was predictive of accuracy scores on all three eyes tasks and disliking cats was likewise predictive of CET scores. Questionnaire information are shown in S2 Table and frequency tables for liking cats or dogs are shown in S3 Table. Nosotros therefore conducted two additional regressions using the method described in a higher place (DV: dog/cat liking; IVs: historic period, gender, executive, empathy and clinical measures). Greater canis familiaris liking (F(167,8) = 4.20; p = .0001; adjR² = .128) was predicted by having a pet now, lower TAS DIF, lower OCI-R, lower SPQ NCF, higher SPQ SUS and OEB scores. Greater cat liking (F(169,6) = 6.97; p<.0001; adjR^two = .17) was predicted past having a pet now, college IRI PT, lower TAS DIF and higher TAS DDF.

Replication of core findings

We collected extra information on the new CET (18 trials) and RMET in an additional sample of 228 undergraduate Psychology students (58 males and 170 females; hateful age 19.87 years, SD = one.04, range = 18.26–24.07). When using the all-time subset of 18 trials of the CET (equally identified previously), accuracy was 72.45% (SE = 0.93%), and accuracy for the RMET in this new sample was 72.86% (SE = 0.76%). At that place was no significant divergence betwixt the tasks for accuracy (paired t(227) = -0.97, p = .33). The full correlation between CET and RMET was strong (this new sample: Pr = .38, p<.0001; previous sample for comparison: Pr = .657, p<.0001). When comparing the ii CET information samples there was no significant difference for accuracy (t(381) = -one.78, p = .09) or distribution (F(175, 227) = 0.953, p = .74). RMET accuracy (t(73) = -1.38, p = .17) and distribution (F(175, 227) = 1.04, p = .78) were besides not significantly different across the two samples.

Discussion

We aimed to develop a comparison measure for the human RMET using cat eyes, compare performance with the RMET and a matched control task requiring age judgments, and explore factors that may contribute to chore performance. Our findings bear witness that good for you participants attain a high degree of consensus when asked to judge the mental country of a cat based on a photograph of its optics lone, replicated in a 2d sample. Performance on the CET is also closely related to performance on the RMET. People may take similar perceptions of mental states in cats eyes because they are matching visual cues to a stored template normally used for humans. Indeed, the neural correlates for mental country recognition appear to overlap for humans and non-homo animals [36].

Currently owning a pet was predictive of greater accuracy on all both the RMET and CET, suggesting that fauna exposure is linked to social cognition. Indeed, previous studies have suggested that owning a companion animal can positively touch empathy and advice abilities [37, 38]. Moreover, nosotros found that greater dog liking predicted greater accurateness on all optics tasks. One explanation for this relationship could be that greater emotional communication or mental state recognition may occur during interactions between humans and dogs. Interestingly, cat likers reported more difficulty describing feelings and this was not the example for dog likers. Therefore, a tendency towards expressing or communicating emotion could increase both liking dogs and accuracy on optics tasks.

While mental state recognition from eyes was positively associated with liking dogs (and not liking cats, for the CET), a tendency towards abstruse perspective taking was positively associated with liking cats. Cat likers may therefore show a preference for mental state reasoning based on verbal or semantic data, whereas dog likers may answer better to visual social cues. Visual recognition of emotional facial expressions is thought to involve mirroring [39], so canis familiaris as opposed to cat liking may reflect tendencies towards mirroring versus mentalizing [40]. Our finding that cat likers seem more oriented towards internal experiences and dog likers announced more than emotionally expressive may be in accordance with previous studies suggesting that extraversion is associated with a preference for dogs, whereas introversion and neuroticism is associated with a preference for cats [41, 42].

How tin we explicate the link between liking dogs and performance on the AET? Although historic period judgment is non-social, the task nonetheless involves appraisal of optics which have strong social salience. Perhaps liking dogs could predict attention towards eyes, or comfort with middle contact which is needed for careful visual analysis and good functioning on all iii eyes tasks. RMET performance is typically impaired in ASD, still, given that those with ASD attend more than to the faces and eyes of animals than of humans [15, 16], and animal interaction may heighten social skills in people with ASD [43], these individuals could respond differently to the newly developed CET.

Some other point to take into account is that accuracy on the optics tasks reflect consensus. Therefore people who fit the group norm will score highest. Previous studies have linked cat or dog preference to personality [41, 42], which may in turn influence CET performance. Mayhap the degree of liking dogs could be indicative of a tendency towards more of a 'group mentality' and social consensus, whereas cat lovers may exist more independently minded (similar their cats) and therefore less concerned about social norms. Having said this, participants did brand their judgments independently and would accept been unaware of the likely group consensus during testing. Information technology would be interesting to further test the social cerebral skills of people with a strong liking for either cats, or dogs. One may even speculate that the everyday quality of social interaction experienced by an individual (including with animals) could be reflected in resting state or event-related brain activity in add-on to behavioural operation on tasks.

In relation to associations between eyes tasks and other measures, executive functions were not related to CET or AET performance, but working retentiveness predicted RMET accurateness. Correlations betwixt RMET accuracy, schizotypal personality characteristics, and empathy support previous research [24, 27]. No measures of psychopathology were significantly associated with performance on the CET. Yet, IRI fantasy subscale scores (which assess the tendency to take the perspective of a fictional character) were too related with operation on all 3 optics tasks, suggesting that some form of perspective taking is involved in the CET and AET. Overall our findings support the possibility that the CET and AET contain useful counterpart or control tasks when administered with the RMET, especially in participants with working retentiveness damage or psychiatric disorders. Social cognitive tasks using non-man stimuli provide a complimentary approach when investigating social cognition, particularly in clinical populations. Future evaluation could support the possibility that the CET is less affected by confounds and assist estimation of the basis of task impairments. For example, performance on the CET and the RMET may dissociate in groups who experience some aversive response to human being stimuli or human eye gaze (east.g. ASD, social feet disorder, trauma etc.).

Although nosotros take confirmed our initial findings in a 2d sample within this report, farther inquiry should keep to refine the CET and AET, specially to improve internal consistency. Indeed, previous studies have reported poor internal consistency in relation to the RMET, and that it may not encounter assumptions of normality [24, 44]. Gender has likewise been suggested to be potentially influential in terms of RMET performance (e.one thousand. females can prove superior functioning [45, 46], but see e.g. Businesswoman-Cohen et al. [47] and Cook and Saucier [48]). Our sample was majority female, which could limit generalisability i.e. the present outcome is limited, since many more than females were involved. Our findings could as well accept been influenced by the employ of a educatee sample or differences in presentation formats of the eyes chore (we used computerised presentation). We used the response options selected by the majority of participants as our correct answers for the CET and AET, whereas the correct answers for the RMET were determined by selection by at least v of 8 experts in the original written report. Although these methods are not equivalent, criteria for selecting experts could introduce bias, and nosotros have shown that the right answers for the RMET would be the same when applying the method used in the current study. Another limitation is that although in that location was a high caste of consensus within these strongly correlated optics tasks, and previous studies have shown that RMET performance is correlated with measures of intelligence [49], we cannot know exactly what is being measured. This may become clearer through the application of fMRI. In addition, we likewise cannot know whether the recognised true cat mental states are simply in the centre of the beholder; but then this is besides the case for the RMET as we cannot be certain what the people in the photographs were actually thinking or feeling. Information technology is also the case that not all tasks were counterbalanced, and optics test response options always appeared in a fixed location around the images (every bit in the standard RMET), so this could be manipulated in future enquiry. Finally, the pet questionnaire was quite rough, and a more than fine grained assessment relating to animal contact and preferences, and in tendencies towards anthropomorphism, may yield further insight.

In conclusion, people appear to be able to read the mind in the optics of a true cat, reaching a high level of consensus approaching that for man stimuli. This ability is non influenced by factors such as working memory, schizotypal personality or empathy towards humans, which can predict operation on the human RMET. Liking dogs may predict greater accuracy on tests of social cognition involving facial features. While the CET should be further developed and replicated in boosted samples, our findings suggest that future studies should explore the use of like measures in groups with established impairments in social cognition, given that the ability to apply circuitous mental states to humans versus non-humans may be differentially affected.

Supporting information

References

1. 1. Baron-Cohen Due south, Wheelwright Due south, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I. The "Reading the Heed in the Eyes" Test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-performance autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2001;42(2): 241–251. pmid:11280420
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
2. two. Businesswoman-Cohen S, Bowen DC, Holt RJ, Allison C, Auyeung B, Lombardo MV, et al. The "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" Test: Complete Absence of Typical Sex Difference in ~400 Men and Women with Autism. PLoS Ane 2015;10(8): e0136521. pmid:26313946
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Tsuruya N, Kobayakawa M, Kawamura Thou. Is "reading mind in the eyes" impaired in Parkinson's illness? Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2011;17(4): 246–248. pmid:20889365
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Allain P, Havet-Thomassin 5, Verny C, Gohier B, Lancelot C, Besnard J, et al. Prove for deficits on different components of theory of heed in Huntington's disease. Neuropsychology 2011;25(6): 741–751. pmid:21728429
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
5. five. Eddy CM, Sira Mahalingappa South, Rickards HE. Is Huntington's disease associated with deficits in theory of listen? Acta Neurol Scand 2012;126(6): 376–383. pmid:22404634
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Eddy CM, Mitchell IJ, Beck SR, Cavanna AE, Rickards H. Social reasoning in Tourette syndrome. Cogn Neuropsychiatry 2011;sixteen(four): 326–347. pmid:21246423
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
7. vii. Hirao K, Miyata J, Fujiwara H, Yamada G, Namiki C, Shimizu Chiliad, et al. Theory of mind and frontal lobe pathology in schizophrenia: a voxel-based morphometry written report. Schizophr Res 2008;105(1–3): 165–174. pmid:18774263
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Castelli I, Baglio F, Blasi V, Alberoni G, Falini A, Liverta-Sempio O, et al. Effects of aging on mindreading ability through the eyes: an fMRI study. Neuropsychologia 2010; 48(9): 2586–2594. pmid:20457166
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. nine. Moor BG, Macks ZA, Güroglu B, Rombouts SA, Molen MW, Crone EA. Neurodevelopmental changes of reading the mind in the eyes. Social Cogn Affect Neurosci 2012;vii(ane): 44–52.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Schiffer B, Pawliczek C, Müller BW, Gizewski ER, Walter H. Why don't men understand women? Altered neural networks for reading the linguistic communication of male and female eyes. PLoS 1 2013;8(4): e60278. pmid:23593185
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Adams RB Jr., Rule NO, Franklin RG Jr., Wang East, Stevenson MT, Yoshikawa S, et al. Cross-cultural reading the mind in the optics: an fMRI investigation. J Cogn Neurosci 2010;22(1): 97–108. pmid:19199419
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Brecht Thousand, Freiwald WA. The many facets of facial interactions in mammals. Current Stance in Neurobiology 2012;22(2): 259–266. pmid:22209040
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
13. thirteen. Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT. On seeing human: a 3-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 2007;114(iv): 864–886. pmid:17907867
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Paul ES, Moore A, McAnish P, Symonds E, McCune S, Bradshaw WS. Sociality Motivation and Anthropomorphic Thinking about Pets. Anthrozoös 2014;27(iv): 499–512.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Whyte EM, Behrmann M, Minshew NJ, Garcia NV, Scherf KS. Animal, but not human, faces appoint the distributed face network in adolescents with autism. Dev Sci 2016;19: 306–317. pmid:25873084
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
16. sixteen. Grandgeorge M, Degrez C, Alavi Z, Lemonnier Due east. Confront processing of animal and homo static stimuli by children with autism spectrum disorder: a airplane pilot study. Man-Animal Interaction Bulletin 2016;iv: 39–53.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Eddy CM, Cavanna AE, Hansen PC. Empathy and aversion: the neural signature of mentalizing in Tourette syndrome. Psychol Med 2017;47(three): 507–517. pmid:27776574
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
18. xviii. Businesswoman-Cohen Due south, Wheelwright S. The Empathy Quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or loftier functioning autism, and normal sexual practice differences. J Autism Dev Disord 2004;34: 163–175. pmid:15162935
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Davis MH. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology 1980;10: 85.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Davis MH. Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Social Psychol 1983;44: 113–126.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Bagby R, Parker JA, Taylor GJ. The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Calibration: I. Item selection and cross-validation of the cistron construction. J Psychosom Res 1994a;38: 23–32.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Bagby R, Taylor GJ, Parker JA. The xx-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: II. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity. J Psychosom Res 1994b;38: 33–forty.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Lyvers M, Kohlsdorf SM, Edwards MS, Thorberg FA. Alexithymia and mood: Recognition of emotion in self and others. Am J Psychol 2017;130(ane): 83–92. pmid:29508959
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Vellante M, Businesswoman-Cohen S, Melis M, Marrone Thou, Petretto DR, Masala C, et al. The "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" exam: systematic review of psychometric properties and a validation study in Italia. Cogn Neuropsychiatry 2013;18(four): 326–354. pmid:23106125
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Demers LA, Koven NS. The relation of alexithymic traits to affective theory of mind. Am J Psychol 2015;128(1): 31–42. pmid:26219172
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Raine A. The Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ): A scale for the cess of schizotypal personality based on DSM-III-R criteria. Schizophr Balderdash 1991;17: 555–564. pmid:1805349
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Irani F, Platek SM, Panyavin IS, Calkins ME, Kohler C, Siegel SJ, et al. Self-face recognition and theory of mind in patients with schizophrenia and first-degree relatives. Schizophr Res 2006;88(1–3): 151–160. pmid:16979876
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Foa EB, Huppert JD, Leiberg South, Langner R, Kichic R, Hajcak G et al. The Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory: development and validation of a short version. Psychol Assess 2002;14: 485–496. pmid:12501574
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Ruscio AM, Stein DJ, Chiu WT, Kessler RC. The epidemiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Mol Psychiatr 2010;15: 53–63.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Eckblad M, Chapman LJ, Chapman JP, Mishlove M. The revised social anhedonia calibration. Unpublished examination, 1982 (copies bachelor from T. R. Kwapil, Department of Psychology, University of Due north Carolina at Greensboro, P. O. Box 26170 Greensboro, NC 27402–6170).
31. 31. Berthoz S, Lalanne C, Crane L, Colina EL. Investigating emotional impairments in adults with autism spectrum disorders and the broader autism phenotype. Psychiatry Res 2013;208(3): 257–264. pmid:23747233
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Werheid K, Hoppe C, Thone A, Muller U, Mungersdorf K, Yves von Cramon D. The adaptive digit ordering test: clinical application, reliability, and validity of a verbal working retentiveness test. Curvation Clin Neuropsychol 2002;17: 547–565. pmid:14591855
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Graham JW. Missing information assay: making it work in the existent world. Ann Rev Psychol 2009;lx: 549–576.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Landis JR, Koch GG. The Measurement of Observer Agreement For Categorical Data. Biometrics 1977;33: 159–174. pmid:843571
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Calkins ME, Curtis CE, Grove WM, Iacono WG. Multiple dimensions of schizotypy in beginning degree biological relatives of schizophrenia patients. Schizophr Bull 2004;30(two): 317–325. pmid:15279049
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Spunt RP, Ellsworth E, Adolphs R. The neural footing of understanding the expression of the emotions in man and animals. Soc Cogn Bear on Neurosci 2017; 12(one): 95–105. pmid:27803286
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Maruyama G. The Effects of Animals on Children'south Development of Perspective-Taking Abilities. ProQuest Information & Learning: Ann Arbor, MI, U.s.a., 2011.
38. 38. Svensson AS. The impact of the animals on children's learning and their evolution—A study of what children acquire from and with pets: The example of canis familiaris and true cat. Bug of Pedagogy in the 21^st Century 2014;59: 77–85.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Oberman LM, Winkielman P, Ramachandran VS. Face to confront: blocking facial mimicry can selectively impair recognition of emotional expressions. Soc Neurosci 2007;2(iii–4): 167–178. pmid:18633815
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Van Overwalle F, Baetens K. Understanding others' actions and goals by mirror and mentalizing systems: a meta-analysis. Neuroimage 2009;48(3): 564–584. pmid:19524046
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Gosling SD, Sandy CJ, Potter J. Personalities of Self-Identified "Dog People" and "Cat People". Anthrozoös 2010;23(3): 213–222.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Reevy Thou, Delgado MM. Are emotionally attached companion animal caregivers careful and neurotic? Factors that bear upon the human-companion fauna relationship. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2015;eighteen(3): 239–258. pmid:25517173
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. O'Haire ME, McKenzie SJ, Beck AM, Slaughter V. Social Behaviors Increase in Children with Autism in the Presence of Animals Compared to Toys. PLoS Ane 2013;8(2): e57010. pmid:23468902
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Olderbak Due south, Wilhelm O, Olaru G, Geiger M, Brenneman MW, Roberts RD. A psychometric analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for inquiry and applied settings. Front Psychol 2015;6: 1503. pmid:26500578
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. Kirkland RA, Peterson Due east, Baker CA, Miller S, Pulos Southward. Meta-analysis reveals adult female superiority in "Reading the listen in the eyes" exam. N Am J Psychol 2013;15(1):121–146.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Isernia Due south, Sokolov AN, Fallgatter AJ, Pavlova MA. Untangling the Ties Between Social Knowledge and Body Motion: Gender Impact. Front end Psychol 2020;11: 128. pmid:32116932
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Baron-Cohen Southward, Ring H, Chitnis X, Wheelwright South, Gregory L, Williams S et al. fMRI of parents of children with Asperger syndrome: A pilot study. Brain Cogn 2006;61: 122–130. pmid:16460858
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Cook CM, Saucier DM. Mental rotation, targeting power and Baron-Cohen'south Empathizing-Systemizing theory of sex differences. Pers Individ Diff 2010;49: 712–716.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Bakery CA, Peterson E, Pulos Southward, Kirkland RA. Eyes and IQ: A meta-assay of the relationship betwixt intelligence and "Reading the Mind in the Eyes". Intelligence 2014;44: 78–92.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

milleryoursurs.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235529

Share this post