Cited by 211Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Executive function mechanisms of Theory of Mind

Ahmed, Fayeza S., Stephen Miller, L.·2011·Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between Executive Function (EF) and Theory of Mind (ToM) using the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS) and three tests of ToM (Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (RMET), Strange Stories test, and Faux Pas test). Separate regression analyses were conducted, and EF predictors varied by ToM test. No EF domains accounted for significant variance in RMET scores; only estimated IQ scores were significant predictors of RMET performance. Verbal fluency and deductive reasoning were significant predictors of performance on the Strange Stories test, while verbal fluency, problem solving, and gender accounted for a significant variance in the Faux Pas test. Results suggest that the ToM tests each utilized differing cognitive mechanisms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10803-010-1087-7

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In general, verbal abilities are associated with performance on the Eyes Test.

    “In general, verbal abilities are associated with performance on the Eyes Test (Golan et al., 2006; Ahmed and Miller, 2011; Peterson and Miller, 2012; cf. Ferguson and Austin, 2010 who found no relation).”
  • Previous research suggests that at the manifest level, the Eyes Test is weakly related to verbal fluency.

    “Previous research suggests that at the manifest level, the Eyes Test is weakly related to verbal fluency (Ahmed and Miller, 2011) and moderately related to verbal IQ (Golan et al., 2006; Peterson and Miller, 2012).”
  • Within studies of typical individuals, these results are likely to explain why poor correlations have been reported between the RMET and alternative tests of ToM.

    “Within studies of typical individuals, these results are also likely to explain why poor correlations have been reported between the RMET and alternative tests of ToM, such as the Strange Stories Test and the Faux Pas Test (Ahmed & Stephen Miller, 2011; Spek, Scholte, & van Berckelaer-Onnes, 2010).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahmed, F. S., & Stephen Miller, L.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Ahmed, Fayeza S.
Venue
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
Published
2010-09-01
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
667-678
ISSN
  • 0162-3257 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3432
OpenAlex
W2045681212
Cited by
211
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
FWCI
12.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
executive function, theory of mind, Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, Faux Pas Test, verbal fluency, deductive reasoning, problem solving, IQ, gender differences, autism spectrum disorder
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Intelligence Tests, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Regression Analysis, Sex Factors, Executive Function, Theory of Mind

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review