Cited by 97Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending

Neural bases of Theory of Mind in children with autism spectrum disorders and children with conduct problems and callous‐unemotional traits

Open access
O'Nions, Elizabeth, Sebastian, Catherine L., McCrory, Eamon, Chantiluke, Kaylita, Happé, Francesca, Viding, Essi·2014·Developmental Science

Abstract

Individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have difficulty understanding other minds (Theory of Mind; ToM), with atypical processing evident at both behavioural and neural levels. Individuals with conduct problems and high levels of callous‐unemotional (CU) traits (CP/HCU) exhibit reduced responsiveness to others' emotions and difficulties interacting with others, but nonetheless perform normally in experimental tests of ToM. The present study aimed to examine the neural underpinnings of ToM in children (aged 10–16) with ASD (N = 16), CP/HCU (N = 16) and typically developing (TD) controls (N = 16) using a non‐verbal cartoon vignette task. Whilst individuals with ASD were predicted to show reduced fMRI responses across regions involved in ToM processing, CP/HCU individuals were predicted to show no differences compared with TD controls. The analyses indicated that neural responses did not differ between TD and CP/HCU groups during ToM. TD and CP/HCU children exhibited significantly greater medial prefrontal cortex responses during ToM than did the ASD group. Within the ASD group, responses in medial prefrontal cortex and right temporoparietal junction (TPJ) correlated with symptom severity as measured by the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS). Findings suggest that although both ASD and CP/HCU are characterized by social difficulties, only children with ASD display atypical neural processing associated with ToM.

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 · 10.1111/desc.12167

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The conduct disorder group tends to perform at an average level on alternative ToM tasks and tends to have intact mentalizing capacity.

    “Despite poor emotion recognition performance, the same group tends to perform at an average level on alternative ToM tasks and tends to have intact mentalizing capacity (O’Nions et al., 2014).”

    From ‘Theory of Mind’ is not Theory of Emotion: a cautionary note on the reading the Mind in the Eyes test (2016) · cites this paper as O’Nions et al., 2014

    The Abstract says children with conduct problems and high callous-unemotional traits (CP/HCU) perform normally on experimental ToM tests, and the Discussion says their ToM-related neural responses were comparable to controls. The claim calls this a conduct disorder group, but the paper's finding is limited to children with CP/HCU, not conduct disorder generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'Nions, E., Sebastian, C. L., McCrory, E., Chantiluke, K., Happé, F., & Viding, E.
Affiliations
  • Developmental Risk & Resilience Unit Clinical Educational, and Health Psychology Research Department University College London UK
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
Developmental Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-03-17
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
786-796
ISSN
  • 1363-755X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-7687
OpenAlex
W2168034076
Cited by
97
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Staff Publications Online (The Tavistock and Portman) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • British Academy (53229)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (RES-062-23- 2202)
  • Central Research Funds (AR/CRF/B16)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Keywords
theory of mind, autism spectrum disorder, callous-unemotional traits, conduct problems, children, medial prefrontal cortex, temporoparietal junction, neural correlates, social cognition, symptom severity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Brain, Brain Mapping, Child, Child Development Disorders, Pervasive, Empathy, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Reaction Time, Linear Models, Conduct Disorder, 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