Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 161

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Domain-specificity and theory of mind: evaluating neuropsychological evidence

Apperly, Ian A., Samson, Dana, Humphreys, Glyn W.·2005·Trends in Cognitive Sciences
DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.004

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Cited by

See all 161

Metadata

Authors
Apperly, I. A., Samson, D., & Humphreys, G. W.
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-12
Volume
9
Issue
12
Pages
572-577
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.004
OpenAlex
W2126085652
Cited by
161
References
15
FWCI
5.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Domain-specificity and theory of mind: evaluating neuropsychological evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.004
The paper
Apperly, I. A., Samson, D., & Humphreys, G. W. (2005). Domain-specificity and theory of mind: evaluating neuropsychological evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.