The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test

The "Reading the Listen in the Eyes" is meant to test Theory of Heed (ToM) or the ability to recognize and sympathize another person's mental land. It's supposed to be a more advanced test than "Fear, Anger, Joy", which tests simple emotion recognition.

The original 1997 version of Reading the Mind in the Optics consisted of a set of 25 photos showing the area around the eyes and a selection of two possible mental states for each photo.

Yet, the limited number of items on the examination combined with the choice of only two responses resulted in a test that wasn't very reliable. Parents of autistic children were scoring every bit far below the controls as the As/HFA group was. Additionally, the original version of the test included some expressions for bones emotions (happiness, sadness) which were considered too easily recognizable and not a truthful test of ToM.

The revised version of Reading the Listen in the Eyes contains 36 items with 4 respond choices for each item, increasing the possible range of scores forth with the difficulty level. It also contains a residuum of male and female photos, a choice betwixt more than closely related mental states (i.e. not a option betwixt opposites like sympathetic/unsympathetic), and is composed entirely of photos representing circuitous mental states.

In the original report to validate the test, the Equally/HFA group scored a mean of 21.9 while the control had a mean of 26.two. Nonetheless, the Equally/HFA grouping had but 15 participants versus 239 controls. A sample size of xv is modest, especially for written report in which participants only have to complete 2 questionnaires (the AQ and Reading the Mind the Heed in the Optics. I'm curious why the researchers didn't brand an attempt to obtain a larger AS/HFA sample when they had the resources to administrate the exam to so many controls.

Pros and Cons of the Reading the Mind in the Eyes examination

Pros:

• Tests recognition of complex mental states
• Balanced presentation of male and female expressions
• Offers subtly similar answer options to increase difficulty level
• Self-scoring
• Provides a list of items that were answered incorrectly (with the correct answers)

Cons:

• Validation study relied on a small-scale sample size
• Sets up artificial constraints non nowadays in real life (limited choice of options, fourth dimension to study "frozen" expressions)
• Allows for unlimited time to answer each detail

Taking the Test

You can take the test here. It'due south all on 1 page. Simply expect at each set of optics and and then cull which of the four options best describes the state of mind that the pair of eyes conveys. Ideally, you should make your pick as speedily as possible.

Information technology took me a little over v minutes to consummate the examination. I feel like I spent as well much time on a few of the photos. For an idea of how unintuitive my procedure is when I take this kind of test, at 1 point I establish myself unable to decide if a particular expression was content or defiant. These are very unlike mental states, but I ended up guessing (correctly!) because I couldn't conclusively pick 1 over the other.

Once you've selected an reply for all 36 items, click the "get score" button and your score will exist displayed at the top of the page.

Scoring the Exam

Your score is a measure out of how many out of the 36 items y'all answer correctly. You'll also get a list of which answers you missed and a short summary of where your score fits in the distribution (below average, average or to a higher place boilerplate).

Hither is my scoring information:

Your score: 31

A typical score is in the range 22-30. If yous scored over 30, yous are very accurate at decoding a person'southward facial expressions around their eyes. A score nether 22 indicates you find this quite difficult.

The correct answers for the ones you lot missed are: [I added in my answers in brackets so y'all can laugh at how wildly off some of them are]

• 17: doubtful [I chose affectionate – this could be a serious gaffe in a social situation!]
• xviii: decisive [I chose bored]
• 19: tentative [I chose grateful]
• 28: interested [I chose appreciating – non that far off]
• 35: nervous [I chose wistful]

Like the "Fearfulness, Anger, Joy" examination, I scored slightly above average. I'm starting to question how much these tests say about a person's ability to read facial expressions in "live" social contexts.

When I'm taking a exam like this, there are two artificial constraints:

1.  I'grand forcing myself to intensely focus on and study each facial expression.
2.  I'one thousand given limited options to choose from.

Based on the availability of four choices, random guessing alone would result in, on average, xiii correct answers. If yous await at the options for each expression, at least one and oftentimes two are patently incorrect (to me, and that may merely be me). I of my primary test taking strategies is process of emptying and my approach to this test was no different. If I can eliminate ane or two options, my odds of guessing correctly go upwardly significantly.

The artificial nature of the test seems to reduce its value in identifying bug with ToM. When I'grand interacting with another person, I'm usually too preoccupied with trying to follow the conversation to spend much time "studying" the other person's constantly changing expressions.

Frequently when I'g concentrating on a chat, I'll look away from the other person's face because I detect it easier to process information that way. You tin't gather a lot of facial expression data when y'all're staring out the window. And, most importantly, in that location are no prompts. The other person'south expression could be maxim literally anything and I take no helpful cue words to narrow that down for me.

Can you guess what this pair of optics is saying without whatever cue words to help you lot? Give it a shot in the comments if yous like.

So there is the fact that recognizing an expression is one thing; attributing causation is another thing entirely. Facial expressions are supposed to provide the clues that allow united states to understand what another person is experiencing (the content of their mental land). Recognizing an expression of anticipation is the first stride; deducing what the other person is anticipating should logically follow. Together these make upwardly the concept of Theory of Listen.

To say that the Reading the Mind in the Eyes exam is a measure of Theory of Listen is only partially truthful, specially for those of the states on the spectrum. The second pace of the process–understanding the content of the other person'southward mental land–is where I often go wrong.

The Bottom Line

This is an interesting test of static facial expression reading. It'southward value as a test of Theory of Mind is less certain.

mcguinnessgons1995.blogspot.com

Source: https://musingsofanaspie.com/2012/12/18/taking-the-reading-the-mind-in-the-eyes-test/

Share this post