↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive Load Disrupts Implicit Theory-of-Mind Processing

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Science, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
23 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
329 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cognitive Load Disrupts Implicit Theory-of-Mind Processing
Published in
Psychological Science, July 2012
DOI 10.1177/0956797612439070
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dana Schneider, Rebecca Lam, Andrew P. Bayliss, Paul E. Dux

Abstract

Eye movements in Sally-Anne false-belief tasks appear to reflect the ability to implicitly monitor the mental states of other individuals (theory of mind, or ToM). It has recently been proposed that an early-developing, efficient, and automatically operating ToM system subserves this ability. Surprisingly absent from the literature, however, is an empirical test of the influence of domain-general executive processing resources on this implicit ToM system. In the study reported here, a dual-task method was employed to investigate the impact of executive load on eye movements in an implicit Sally-Anne false-belief task. Under no-load conditions, adult participants displayed eye movement behavior consistent with implicit belief processing, whereas evidence for belief processing was absent for participants under cognitive load. These findings indicate that the cognitive system responsible for implicitly tracking beliefs draws at least minimally on executive processing resources. Thus, even the most low-level processing of beliefs appears to reflect a capacity-limited operation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 329 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Germany 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 311 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 76 23%
Student > Master 47 14%
Researcher 44 13%
Student > Bachelor 43 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 66 20%
Unknown 34 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 186 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 5%
Neuroscience 15 5%
Social Sciences 14 4%
Linguistics 9 3%
Other 40 12%
Unknown 50 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2016.
All research outputs
#964,974
of 24,996,701 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Science
#1,608
of 4,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,952
of 169,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Science
#24
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,996,701 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 84.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 169,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.