Table 1.
Examples of tests used in the diagnosis of ToM deficits.
Table 2.
Characteristics of the healthy participants (n = 124) for the normative data collection phase of the two belief reasoning tasks.
Table 3.
Description of the sequences of events of the different trial categories in the « reality-unknown » belief reasoning task.
Table 4.
Description of the sequences of the different trial categories at the « reality-known » belief reasoning task.
Fig 1.
Decision tree to analyze the patient’s profile in the reality-unknown belief reasoning task.
FB = false belief, TB = true belief, *Control trials include MC (memory control) + Filler trials, **Such deficit could be combined with difficulties in processing the input information if the performance on the control trials is below the cut-off albeit better than the performance on the FB trials.
Table 5.
Cut-off scores (threshold values derived from the healthy controls’ performance collected in the current study; if the participant’s performance is at or below this cut-off score, her/his performance is pathological) for the false belief, true belief and control trials in the reality-unknown task and the reality-known task.
Table 6.
The cut-off scores (derived from the healthy controls’ performance collected in the current study) to determine the presence or absence of a dissociation between two categories of trials.
Fig 2.
Decision tree to analyze the patient’s profile in the reality-known belief reasoning task.
FB = false belief, TB/MC = true belief/memory control, *Control trials include TB/MC + filler trials, ** Such deficit could be combined with difficulties in processing the input information if the performance on the control trials is below the cut-off albeit better than the performance on the FB trials.
Table 7.
Decision table to analyze the integrity of the targeted ToM processes.
The interpretations are based on the various possible profiles of performance across the two belief reasoning tasks. According to the patient’s performance profile in the reality-unknown belief reasoning task, the clinician is invited to select the profile of performance in the reality-known task, followed by the type of dissociation across the false belief trials of the two tasks.
Table 8.
The cut-off scores (threshold values derived from the healthy controls’ performance collected in the current study; if the difference of participant’s scores is at or above this cut-off score, the difference is pathological), for the difference between the false belief trials of the reality-known task and the false belief trials of the reality-unknown task.
Fig 3.
Percentage of correct responses according to age group and gender for the reality-unknown belief reasoning task.
Accuracy did not differ significantly between women and men, except in the 35–49 year-olds. The error bars represent the confidence intervals 95% around the mean.
Fig 4.
Percentage of correct responses as a function of age group and type of trials for the reality-unknown belief reasoning task.
The error bars represent the confidence intervals 95% around the mean, they were corrected for repeated measures by age group according the Cousineau method [68]. FB = false belief trials, TB = true belief trials, Control = control trials (including memory control and Filler trials).
Table 9.
Demographics data, performances and classification of the brain-damaged patients (n = 21) at the two false belief reasoning tasks.