Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · Updated 1 September 2026
PWR-171 · RESEARCH full tutorial
Audit a theory-of-mind study without turning one belief-reasoning score into “mind reading”
Build a paper audit around false-belief and digital social-cognition trials rather than trying to read another person’s mind. You will separate belief reasoning from affect recognition, language demands, active-control effects, retention and everyday function, then state what replication would be needed before training claims or individual assessment could be justified.
What you will produceThe learner produces a methods table that distinguishes belief, emotion, intention and language demands, tests an active-control explanation, and states the evidence gate for any future training claim.
Method8 numbered Power-specific steps
Practice authorityComplete research method; no operational self-experiment
Full step-by-step individual tutorial · TLU-PWR-171
The learner produces a methods table that distinguishes belief, emotion, intention and language demands, tests an active-control explanation, and states the evidence gate for any future training claim.
Theory of mind research question: Ask: “In the declared population, does the named training improve novel belief-reasoning accuracy beyond an active control, and is any gain retained?”
Paper reconstruction — Extract the sample and allocation: Record sample size, age or diagnosis, recruitment, randomisation, exclusions and attrition for each study.
Non-operational gate — Write the next gate: Require independent replication, novel tasks, delayed retention, participant-valued function and adverse-event reporting before calling the method trainable.
Qualified help is required for
Operational boundary: participants, devices and field activity are excluded from “Compare a small false-belief training trial with a digital social-cognition trial that used an active control, focusing on whether either study shows retained real-world social function.”.
Theory of mind specialist review covers adverse events, uncertainty and the registered measure “Accuracy and confidence on declared belief-reasoning tasks plus participant-chosen function”.
Approval gate for ethics, consent and data governance: Seek statistical or clinical review before interpreting complex models, diagnostic groups or adverse events.
Never do this from the page alone
Unsupported Theory of mind shortcut: Treat every social-cognition measure as the same theory-of-mind trait.
Comparator failure to exclude: Celebrate improvement in the intervention arm alone.
Keep the Theory of mind evidence map on paper; it is not a recipe for self-experimentation, implantation, stimulation or live deployment.
2 · Get ready
Gather what you need and check the starting conditions
What you need
Declared Theory of mind fixture: Compare a small false-belief training trial with a digital social-cognition trial that used an active control, focusing on whether either study shows retained real-world social function.
Setup aid for Separate the constructs: Prewrite the difference between trainability, retention, transfer and clinical value.
Theory of mind log: Accuracy and confidence on declared belief-reasoning tasks plus participant-chosen function; retain Theory of mind errors, assistance, stop and fallback.
Theory-of-mind study grid: compare “A randomized controlled trial of training of affect recognition in schizophrenia shows lasting effects for theory of mind” with “The Social and Cognitive Online Training (SCOT) project”. Copy population, task, control, immediate result, follow-up and functional outcome; mark every place where affect recognition, belief reasoning or language demands differ. The monitoring guidance is a no-assessment boundary.
Before you start
Obtain the full methods and results, not only an abstract.
Prewrite the difference between trainability, retention, transfer and clinical value.
Start check for Theory of mind: Population, intervention, comparator, task outcome and delay appear in one sentence.
Top-of-sheet stop for Theory of mind: Stop the review if a source cannot be verified or the study identity is uncertain.
3 · The method
Follow these steps in order
Write one narrow question
Ask: “In the declared population, does the named training improve novel belief-reasoning accuracy beyond an active control, and is any gain retained?”
Why: Population, intervention, comparator, task outcome and delay appear in one sentence.
Check: Population, intervention, comparator, task outcome and delay appear in one sentence.
Separate the constructs
Make four columns: belief, emotion, intention and language. Mark which each test actually requires.
Why: No test is labelled simply “theory of mind” without its component demands.
Check: No test is labelled simply “theory of mind” without its component demands.
Extract the sample and allocation
Record sample size, age or diagnosis, recruitment, randomisation, exclusions and attrition for each study.
Why: Every number is tied to a study arm and missing participants are visible.
Check: Every number is tied to a study arm and missing participants are visible.
Rebuild the task
Write the exact stimulus, response format, scoring rule, cueing and whether the item was trained or novel.
Why: Another reader could tell what counted as a correct answer.
Check: Another reader could tell what counted as a correct answer.
Record comparators and timing
Name the active or passive control, immediate test, delayed test and any chosen functional outcome.
Why: A within-group gain is not mistaken for an advantage over control.
Check: A within-group gain is not mistaken for an advantage over control.
Test alternative explanations
Check language practice, repeated items, expectancy, assessor awareness and unequal contact time.
Why: At least one viable non-mentalising explanation is retained when the design cannot remove it.
Check: At least one viable non-mentalising explanation is retained when the design cannot remove it.
Compare claim with result
Put primary interaction, confidence interval or uncertainty beside the authors’ conclusion; note the active-control null finding where applicable.
Why: The verdict follows the comparison, not the abstract’s tone.
Check: The verdict follows the comparison, not the abstract’s tone.
Write the next gate
Require independent replication, novel tasks, delayed retention, participant-valued function and adverse-event reporting before calling the method trainable.
Why: The final paragraph states what evidence is missing and contains no home protocol.
Check: The final paragraph states what evidence is missing and contains no home protocol.
4 · Worked example
See the whole method used once
Scenario
Compare a small false-belief training trial with a digital social-cognition trial that used an active control, focusing on whether either study shows retained real-world social function.
Walkthrough
Write the question for adults in the SCOT trial: novel task accuracy versus active control at the reported post-test.
Enter each arm’s sample, training contact, task name and timing in separate rows.
Mark the task’s belief, emotion, intention and language demands rather than using one “ToM” column.
Copy the primary interaction result and note that it did not show a specific active-control advantage.
List repeated testing and general social engagement as remaining explanations for any within-arm gain.
Conclude that the record supports continued research, with novel measures and participant-chosen function required before a practical training claim.
Result
The audit yields a bounded evidence verdict and a concrete replication gate. It neither trains theory of mind nor authorises assessment of an individual.
5 · Right and wrong
Compare correct or safer execution with the common wrong version
Right and wrong comparison
Moment
Right / safer
Wrong / riskier
Why it matters
Task label
Describe the exact false-belief or perspective task and its language load.
Treat every social-cognition measure as the same theory-of-mind trait.
Mixed constructs make apparent replication meaningless.
Control comparison
Use the between-group or interaction result against an active control.
Celebrate improvement in the intervention arm alone.
Practice, attention or expectancy may improve both arms.
Transfer claim
Require a separate real interaction or participant-chosen function.
Call vignette accuracy broad social competence.
A test score can remain task-specific.
Diagnostic interpretation
Report the study population and task error.
Use one score to diagnose or rank a person.
These tasks are not unitary mind-reading tests.
6 · Common mistakes
Spot the error and apply the correction
Common mistakes and corrections
Mistake
Fix
Treat every social-cognition measure as the same theory-of-mind trait.
Split outcomes by belief, emotion, intention and language demand.
Celebrate improvement in the intervention arm alone.
Copy the active-control estimate and its uncertainty into the table.
Call vignette accuracy broad social competence.
Label unmeasured function “not tested.” within the two-study theory-of-mind audit.
Use one score to diagnose or rank a person.
Remove person-level labels and return to group-level study claims.
7 · Practice
Turn the steps into a usable skill
First session
Theory-of-mind evidence audit: Compare a small false-belief training trial with a digital social-cognition trial that used an active control, focusing on whether either study shows retained real-world social function.
Narrow active-control question: Write one narrow question: Ask: “In the declared population, does the named training improve novel belief-reasoning accuracy beyond an active control, and is any gain retained?”
Sample and allocation extraction: Extract the sample and allocation: Record sample size, age or diagnosis, recruitment, randomisation, exclusions and attrition for each study.
Non-mentalising explanation test: Test alternative explanations: Check language practice, repeated items, expectancy, assessor awareness and unequal contact time.
Replication and transfer gate: Write the next gate: Require independent replication, novel tasks, delayed retention, participant-valued function and adverse-event reporting before calling the method trainable. File the output as a research audit.
Repeat plan
Audit one new primary study every two weeks. Re-run the table when a replication or longer follow-up appears; do not progress to a synthesis until two studies can be compared on the same construct, comparator and delay.
Progress when
Population, intervention, comparator, task outcome and delay appear in one sentence.
No test is labelled simply “theory of mind” without its component demands.
Every number is tied to a study arm and missing participants are visible.
A second reader can trace every verdict to sample, task, comparator and timing, and the conclusion becomes weaker when the active-control or transfer evidence is weak.
Do not progress when
Do not continue while this error remains: Treat every social-cognition measure as the same theory-of-mind trait.
Pause until this correction works: Copy the active-control estimate and its uncertainty into the table.
This Theory of mind stop ends the block: Stop the review if a source cannot be verified or the study identity is uncertain.
8 · Check the result
Measure what changed
Accuracy and confidence on declared belief-reasoning tasks plus participant-chosen function
How: Evidence fixture: Compare a small false-belief training trial with a digital social-cognition trial that used an active control, focusing on whether either study shows retained real-world social function. Audit action — Extract the sample and allocation: Record sample size, age or diagnosis, recruitment, randomisation, exclusions and attrition for each study. Then enter Accuracy and confidence on declared belief-reasoning tasks plus participant-chosen function, its comparator and uncertainty. Disconfirmation uses “Test alternative explanations”.
Good result: A second reader can trace every verdict to sample, task, comparator and timing, and the conclusion becomes weaker when the active-control or transfer evidence is weak.
This does not prove: Boundary for Theory of mind: “Accuracy and confidence on declared belief-reasoning tasks plus participant-chosen function” describes only Compare a small false-belief training trial with a digital social-cognition trial that used an active control, focusing on whether either study shows retained real-world social function. It cannot establish “Unlock the universal theory-of-mind module”.
Self-check
Without the example, demonstrate: Population, intervention, comparator, task outcome and delay appear in one sentence.
Find the fault in this attempt: “Treat every social-cognition measure as the same theory-of-mind trait.” Apply “Split outcomes by belief, emotion, intention and language demand.”; what changes?
What evidence in the completed record shows that this is wrong: “Celebrate improvement in the intervention arm alone.”?
Theory of mind stop decision: Stop the review if a source cannot be verified or the study identity is uncertain.
9 · Stop, adapt or get help
Keep the safety boundary practical
Stop and get help
Stop the review if a source cannot be verified or the study identity is uncertain.
Do not convert the audit into an intervention with participants, patients or students.
Seek statistical or clinical review before interpreting complex models, diagnostic groups or adverse events.
Accessibility and adaptations
Use a screen-reader-friendly table with one study per row and expand abbreviations in the first cell.
If statistical notation is a barrier, record the direction, group contrast, uncertainty and author-reported significance without inventing an effect size.
10 · Evidence and limits
Why these instructions are here
primary research
Registered support for Theory of mind: “A randomized controlled trial of training of affect recognition in schizophrenia shows lasting effects for theory of mind”. It bears on Accuracy and confidence on declared belief-reasoning tasks plus participant-chosen function inside the Theory of mind fixture. It does not validate “Unlock the universal theory-of-mind module”.
Constraint for Theory of mind, drawn from “The Social and Cognitive Online Training (SCOT) project: A digital randomized controlled trial to promote socio-cognitive well-being in older adults”: The active-control digital trial did not show a specific primary interaction advantage.
ICO worker-monitoring limit — Theory of mind: rights and data protection apply to “Write one narrow question”. Fixture type for “Separate the constructs”: fictional or consented. Covert use of Accuracy and confidence on declared belief-reasoning tasks plus participant-chosen function is outside scope.
Theory of mind boundary: interpret “Accuracy and confidence on declared belief-reasoning tasks plus participant-chosen function” only for Compare a small false-belief training trial with a digital social-cognition trial that used an active control, focusing on whether either study shows retained real-world social function.
A successful result does not establish “Unlock the universal theory-of-mind module”.
Theory of mind limiting finding: The active-control digital trial did not show a specific primary interaction advantage.
Theory of mind limiting finding: Task gains did not establish broad social functioning.
Scope remains Theory of mind: Compare a small false-belief training trial with a digital social-cognition trial that used an active control, focusing on whether either study shows retained real-world social function. Recheck the comparator, support and “Accuracy and confidence on declared belief-reasoning tasks plus participant-chosen function” after any configuration change.
Anja Vaskinn; André Løvgren; Maj K. Egeland; Frida K. Feyer; Tiril Østefjells; Ole A. Andreassen; Ingrid Melle; Kjetil Sundet · 2019 · Primary research
Progress is saved only in this browser on this device.
Step-by-step learner mode
Each activity includes its success check, a nearby accessible alternative and an “I’m stuck” correction path. Alternatives preserve the target where possible; when they change the task, Titan labels them as related rather than equivalent.
01
Write one narrow question
Ask: “In the declared population, does the named training improve novel belief-reasoning accuracy beyond an active control, and is any gain retained?”
Why this step exists
Population, intervention, comparator, task outcome and delay appear in one sentence.
Success check
Population, intervention, comparator, task outcome and delay appear in one sentence.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Ask: “In the declared population, does the named training improve novel belief-reasoning accuracy beyond an active control, and is any gain retained?”” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Call vignette accuracy broad social competence.
Correction: Label unmeasured function “not tested.” within the two-study theory-of-mind audit.
Stop / get help: Stop the review if a source cannot be verified or the study identity is uncertain.
02
Separate the constructs
Make four columns: belief, emotion, intention and language. Mark which each test actually requires.
Why this step exists
No test is labelled simply “theory of mind” without its component demands.
Success check
No test is labelled simply “theory of mind” without its component demands.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Make four columns: belief, emotion, intention and language. Mark which each test actually requires.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Treat every social-cognition measure as the same theory-of-mind trait.
Correction: Split outcomes by belief, emotion, intention and language demand.
Stop / get help: Stop the review if a source cannot be verified or the study identity is uncertain.
03
Extract the sample and allocation
Record sample size, age or diagnosis, recruitment, randomisation, exclusions and attrition for each study.
Why this step exists
Every number is tied to a study arm and missing participants are visible.
Success check
Every number is tied to a study arm and missing participants are visible.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Record sample size, age or diagnosis, recruitment, randomisation, exclusions and attrition for each study.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Use one score to diagnose or rank a person.
Correction: Remove person-level labels and return to group-level study claims.
Stop / get help: Stop the review if a source cannot be verified or the study identity is uncertain.
04
Rebuild the task
Write the exact stimulus, response format, scoring rule, cueing and whether the item was trained or novel.
Why this step exists
Another reader could tell what counted as a correct answer.
Success check
Another reader could tell what counted as a correct answer.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Write the exact stimulus, response format, scoring rule, cueing and whether the item was trained or novel.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Write the exact stimulus, response format, scoring rule, cueing and whether the item was trained or novel.” does not yet meet this declared check: Another reader could tell what counted as a correct answer.
Correction: Return to the start of “Rebuild the task”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Another reader could tell what counted as a correct answer.”
Stop / get help: Stop the review if a source cannot be verified or the study identity is uncertain.
05
Record comparators and timing
Name the active or passive control, immediate test, delayed test and any chosen functional outcome.
Why this step exists
A within-group gain is not mistaken for an advantage over control.
Success check
A within-group gain is not mistaken for an advantage over control.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Name the active or passive control, immediate test, delayed test and any chosen functional outcome.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Name the active or passive control, immediate test, delayed test and any chosen functional outcome.” does not yet meet this declared check: A within-group gain is not mistaken for an advantage over control.
Correction: Return to the start of “Record comparators and timing”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “A within-group gain is not mistaken for an advantage over control.”
Stop / get help: Stop the review if a source cannot be verified or the study identity is uncertain.
06
Test alternative explanations
Check language practice, repeated items, expectancy, assessor awareness and unequal contact time.
Why this step exists
At least one viable non-mentalising explanation is retained when the design cannot remove it.
Success check
At least one viable non-mentalising explanation is retained when the design cannot remove it.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Check language practice, repeated items, expectancy, assessor awareness and unequal contact time.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Check language practice, repeated items, expectancy, assessor awareness and unequal contact time.” does not yet meet this declared check: At least one viable non-mentalising explanation is retained when the design cannot remove it.
Correction: Return to the start of “Test alternative explanations”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “At least one viable non-mentalising explanation is retained when the design cannot remove it.”
Stop / get help: Stop the review if a source cannot be verified or the study identity is uncertain.
07
Compare claim with result
Put primary interaction, confidence interval or uncertainty beside the authors’ conclusion; note the active-control null finding where applicable.
Why this step exists
The verdict follows the comparison, not the abstract’s tone.
Success check
The verdict follows the comparison, not the abstract’s tone.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Put primary interaction, confidence interval or uncertainty beside the authors’ conclusion; note the active-control null finding where applicable.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Celebrate improvement in the intervention arm alone.
Correction: Copy the active-control estimate and its uncertainty into the table.
Stop / get help: Stop the review if a source cannot be verified or the study identity is uncertain.
08
Write the next gate
Require independent replication, novel tasks, delayed retention, participant-valued function and adverse-event reporting before calling the method trainable.
Why this step exists
The final paragraph states what evidence is missing and contains no home protocol.
Success check
The final paragraph states what evidence is missing and contains no home protocol.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Require independent replication, novel tasks, delayed retention, participant-valued function and adverse-event reporting before calling the method trainable.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Require independent replication, novel tasks, delayed retention, participant-valued function and adverse-event reporting before calling the method trainable.” does not yet meet this declared check: The final paragraph states what evidence is missing and contains no home protocol.
Correction: Return to the start of “Write the next gate”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The final paragraph states what evidence is missing and contains no home protocol.”
Stop / get help: Stop the review if a source cannot be verified or the study identity is uncertain.
Correct versus incorrect execution
These accessible process diagrams are built from the tutorial’s own right/wrong teaching. They are not anatomical illustrations and do not add technique beyond the canonical tutorial.
Task label — Mixed constructs make apparent replication meaningless.
Correct / safer
Describe the exact false-belief or perspective task and its language load.
Wrong / riskier
Treat every social-cognition measure as the same theory-of-mind trait.
Control comparison — Practice, attention or expectancy may improve both arms.
Correct / safer
Use the between-group or interaction result against an active control.
Wrong / riskier
Celebrate improvement in the intervention arm alone.
Transfer claim — A test score can remain task-specific.
Correct / safer
Require a separate real interaction or participant-chosen function.
Wrong / riskier
Call vignette accuracy broad social competence.
Diagnostic interpretation — These tasks are not unitary mind-reading tests.
Correct / safer
Report the study population and task error.
Wrong / riskier
Use one score to diagnose or rank a person.
Method-structure checklist
10 of 10 structural checks present
✓ Ordered, Power-specific instructions — present
✓ Every activity has a success check — present
✓ Materials or supplied records are declared — present
✓ Measurement or assessment rule is present — present
✓ Tutorial-specific troubleshooting is present — present
✓ Stopping or escalation boundary is present — present
✓ Every activity has an adjacent alternative — present
✓ Correct-versus-incorrect comparison is present — present
✓ Evidence context is bound to the Power record — present
✓ Planning metadata is present — present
The method-readiness band and presence checklist assess tutorial presentation and are separate from evidence quality for the underlying Power. They are automated editorial aids, not human approval.
Manual editorial sign-off: Pending. This tutorial must not display a human-approved state until an identified editor signs the exact content hash.