Bertrand Beffara, Marina Veyrie, Laura Mauduit, Lara Bardi, Irene Cristofori
{"title":"No evidence for the efficiency of the eye-tracking-based Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test version at detecting differences of mind reading abilities across psychological traits.","authors":"Bertrand Beffara, Marina Veyrie, Laura Mauduit, Lara Bardi, Irene Cristofori","doi":"10.1177/17470218251326569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test' (RMET) is one of the most used tests of theory of mind. Its principle is to match an emotion word to the corresponding face image. The performance at this test has been associated with multiple psychological variables, including personality, loneliness and empathy. Recently, however, the validity of the RMET has been questioned. An alternative version of the test has been tested using eye-tracking in addition to manual responses and was hypothesized to be more sensitive. Here, we put this hypothesis to the test by attempting to reproduce already-assessed correlational results between the performance at the classical RMET and the self-reported personality, loneliness and empathy, now using eye-gaze as an RMET performance index. Despite a marked eye-gaze bias towards the face image corresponding to the target word, the eye-gaze pattern correlated with none of the self-reported psychological variables. This result highlights the interest in using eye-tracking for theory of mind tests, while questioning the robustness of the association between psychological variables and RMET performance, and the validity of the RMET itself.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"17470218251326569"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218251326569","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
No evidence for the efficiency of the eye-tracking-based Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test version at detecting differences of mind reading abilities across psychological traits.
The 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test' (RMET) is one of the most used tests of theory of mind. Its principle is to match an emotion word to the corresponding face image. The performance at this test has been associated with multiple psychological variables, including personality, loneliness and empathy. Recently, however, the validity of the RMET has been questioned. An alternative version of the test has been tested using eye-tracking in addition to manual responses and was hypothesized to be more sensitive. Here, we put this hypothesis to the test by attempting to reproduce already-assessed correlational results between the performance at the classical RMET and the self-reported personality, loneliness and empathy, now using eye-gaze as an RMET performance index. Despite a marked eye-gaze bias towards the face image corresponding to the target word, the eye-gaze pattern correlated with none of the self-reported psychological variables. This result highlights the interest in using eye-tracking for theory of mind tests, while questioning the robustness of the association between psychological variables and RMET performance, and the validity of the RMET itself.
期刊介绍：
Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling.
QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form.
The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
