@brainpilot/skills 0.0.6

package/skills/12_Social_Cognition/tom-task-selector/references/task-database.md

@@ -0,0 +1,317 @@
+# Theory of Mind Task Database
+
+Detailed administration protocols, scoring rubrics, and psychometric properties for each ToM task referenced in the main SKILL.md.
+
+---
+
+## 1. First-Order False Belief Tasks
+
+### Sally-Anne Task (Change of Location)
+
+**Citation**: Wimmer & Perner, 1983; Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith, 1985
+
+**Materials**: Two dolls (Sally and Anne), a basket, a box, a marble
+
+**Procedure**:
+1. Introduce Sally and Anne
+2. Sally places marble in basket
+3. Sally leaves the scene
+4. Anne moves marble from basket to box
+5. Sally returns
+
+**Questions** (all required):
+
+| Question | Type | Purpose | Correct Answer |
+|----------|------|---------|----------------|
+| "Where will Sally look for her marble?" | Test (belief) | Assesses false belief understanding | Basket |
+| "Where is the marble really?" | Reality control | Confirms knowledge of reality | Box |
+| "Where was the marble at the beginning?" | Memory control | Confirms memory of initial state | Basket |
+
+**Scoring**: Pass = correct on test question AND both control questions. Fail on either control = exclude trial.
+
+**Variants**:
+- Change-of-location (standard): Object moved while agent is absent
+- Deceptive box / unexpected contents (Gopnik & Astington, 1988): Container with unexpected contents
+- Sticker-finding: Agent puts sticker in one location, moved while absent
+
+**Administration notes**:
+- Use consistent, simple language
+- Ensure child is attending during critical displacement event
+- Some protocols use picture stories instead of dolls (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985)
+
+---
+
+### Unexpected Contents (Smarties/Crayon Box Task)
+
+**Citation**: Gopnik & Astington, 1988; Perner, Leekam, & Wimmer, 1987
+
+**Materials**: Familiar container (e.g., Smarties tube, crayon box) with unexpected contents (e.g., pencils, candles)
+
+**Procedure**:
+1. Show closed container, ask "What do you think is in here?"
+2. Open container, reveal unexpected contents
+3. Close container again
+4. Ask self-representation question: "Before I opened the box, what did you think was in here?"
+5. Introduce a puppet/friend who has not seen inside
+6. Ask other-belief question: "What will [puppet] think is in the box?"
+
+**Scoring**:
+
+| Question | Correct Answer | What It Tests |
+|----------|----------------|---------------|
+| Initial prediction | Smarties/crayons (typical contents) | Understanding of container convention |
+| Self-representation | Smarties/crayons (prior belief) | Understanding own false belief |
+| Other-belief | Smarties/crayons (naive belief) | Standard false belief attribution |
+
+---
+
+## 2. Second-Order False Belief
+
+### Ice-Cream Van Task
+
+**Citation**: Perner & Wimmer, 1985
+
+**Story structure**:
+1. John and Mary are in the park
+2. An ice-cream van arrives in the park
+3. Mary wants ice cream but has no money, goes home to get money
+4. While Mary is away, the ice-cream van moves to the church
+5. BUT: Mary sees the van moving to the church on her way home (John does not know Mary saw this)
+6. John goes looking for Mary
+
+**Test question**: "Where does John think Mary will go to buy ice cream?"
+
+**Correct answer**: The park (John thinks Mary still believes the van is in the park)
+
+**Comprehension questions** (must pass all):
+1. "Where was the van at the beginning?" (Park)
+2. "Where did the van go?" (Church)
+3. "Did Mary see the van move?" (Yes)
+4. "Does John know that Mary saw the van move?" (No)
+
+**Scoring**: Pass = correct test question + all comprehension questions
+
+**Age norms**:
+- 5 years: ~10% pass (Perner & Wimmer, 1985)
+- 6 years: ~30% pass
+- 7 years: ~50% pass
+- 8-9 years: ~80-90% pass
+
+---
+
+## 3. Wellman & Liu (2004) ToM Scale
+
+**Citation**: Wellman & Liu, 2004
+
+A Guttman-scalable battery of 5 tasks administered in a fixed order. Children are expected to pass tasks in order: Diverse Desires > Diverse Beliefs > Knowledge Access > False Belief > Hidden Emotion.
+
+### Task 1: Diverse Desires
+
+**Age**: ~3 years
+**Materials**: Toy figure, pictures of two snacks (e.g., carrot, cookie)
+**Procedure**: Child states own preference. Told figure has opposite preference. Asked what figure will choose.
+**Pass criterion**: Child predicts figure will choose figure's preferred snack (not child's own)
+
+### Task 2: Diverse Beliefs
+
+**Age**: ~3-4 years
+**Materials**: Toy figure, picture of two locations (e.g., garage, bushes)
+**Procedure**: Child states own belief about where a cat is. Told figure has opposite belief. Asked where figure will look.
+**Pass criterion**: Child predicts figure will look in figure's believed location
+
+### Task 3: Knowledge Access
+
+**Age**: ~4 years
+**Materials**: Closed box with object inside
+**Procedure**: Child sees inside box. Asked if another person (who has not seen inside) knows what is in the box.
+**Pass criterion**: Child says "no" (other person does not know)
+
+### Task 4: Contents False Belief
+
+**Age**: ~4-5 years
+**Materials**: Band-Aid box with pig inside
+**Procedure**: Standard unexpected contents task
+**Pass criterion**: Child says other person will think Band-Aids are inside
+
+### Task 5: Hidden Emotion
+
+**Age**: ~5-6 years
+**Materials**: Story about child who receives unwanted gift but does not want to hurt giver's feelings
+**Procedure**: Ask how character really feels vs. how character will try to look
+**Pass criterion**: Child says character really feels sad/disappointed but will try to look happy/okay
+
+**Scalability**: Guttman coefficient of reproducibility > **0.90** (Wellman & Liu, 2004)
+
+---
+
+## 4. Advanced ToM Tasks
+
+### Strange Stories (Happe, 1994)
+
+**Citation**: Happe, 1994
+
+**Story types** (mental state categories):
+
+| Category | Example | Number of Stories |
+|----------|---------|-------------------|
+| White lie | Telling someone their bad haircut looks nice | 2 |
+| Irony | Saying "What lovely weather" during rain | 2 |
+| Double bluff | Saying truth knowing it will be taken as lie | 1 |
+| Misunderstanding | Character misinterprets ambiguous statement | 2 |
+| Persuasion | Trying to convince someone by selective truth-telling | 1 |
+| Appearance/reality | Dressing up to look different | 1 |
+| Figure of speech | Non-literal language | 1 |
+| Sarcasm | Critical remark with opposite literal meaning | 1 |
+| Contrary emotions | Feeling one thing, showing another | 1 |
+| Forgetting | Saying something incorrect due to memory failure | 1 |
+
+**Physical control stories**: 4-8 stories about physical causation (no mental states required)
+
+**Scoring rubric**:
+
+| Score | Criterion |
+|-------|-----------|
+| **0** | Incorrect or irrelevant answer |
+| **1** | Partially correct; mentions behavior but not mental state |
+| **2** | Full mental state attribution; correct and complete |
+
+**Administration**: Read story aloud, show illustration, ask "Why did [character] say that?"
+
+**Inter-rater reliability**: Train coders to kappa > **0.85** before scoring data
+
+---
+
+### Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET)
+
+**Citation**: Baron-Cohen et al., 2001 (revised version)
+
+**Adult version**:
+- **36** items (photographs of eye region only)
+- Forced choice: 4 mental state terms per item
+- No time limit (self-paced)
+- Score: total correct out of 36
+
+**Child version**:
+- **28** items
+- Forced choice: 4 terms (simpler vocabulary)
+- Age range: 6-12 years
+
+**Normative data** (adult version):
+
+| Group | Mean | SD | Source |
+|-------|------|----|--------|
+| Typical adults | **26.2** | **3.6** | Baron-Cohen et al., 2001 |
+| Autistic adults (Asperger's) | **21.9** | **6.6** | Baron-Cohen et al., 2001 |
+| Typical females | **26.4** | **3.5** | Baron-Cohen et al., 2001 |
+| Typical males | **25.1** | **4.0** | Baron-Cohen et al., 2001 |
+
+**Psychometric notes**:
+- Internal consistency: alpha = **0.60-0.70** (modest; Olderbak et al., 2015)
+- Test-retest: r = **0.63-0.83** (Fernandez-Abascal et al., 2013)
+- Factor structure: May not be unidimensional (Olderbak et al., 2015)
+- Confound: correlates with vocabulary/verbal IQ
+
+---
+
+### Faux Pas Test
+
+**Citation**: Baron-Cohen et al., 1999; Stone, Baron-Cohen, & Knight, 1998
+
+**Materials**: 20 stories total (10 faux pas + 10 control)
+
+**Faux pas stories**: A character unintentionally says something hurtful or inappropriate
+
+**Questions per faux pas story**:
+
+| Question | Purpose | Max Score |
+|----------|---------|-----------|
+| "Did someone say something they shouldn't have?" | Detection | 1 |
+| "Who said something they shouldn't have?" | Identification | 1 |
+| "Why shouldn't they have said it?" | Understanding (empathy) | 1 |
+| "Why did they say it?" | False belief component | 1 |
+| "How did [victim] feel?" | Empathy/emotion attribution | 1 |
+| Comprehension question | Memory control | 1 |
+
+**Scoring**: Maximum **60** points for faux pas stories (6 points x 10 stories)
+
+**Control stories**: No faux pas. Must correctly say "no" to detection question + pass comprehension.
+
+**Development**:
+- 7-8 year olds: detect ~50% of faux pas (Baron-Cohen et al., 1999)
+- 9-11 year olds: detect ~80% of faux pas
+- Adults: detect ~90%+ of faux pas
+- Girls tend to score higher than boys in childhood (Baron-Cohen et al., 1999)
+
+---
+
+### Director Task
+
+**Citation**: Keysar, Lin, & Barr, 2003
+
+**Setup**: 4x4 grid of shelves, some slots occluded from director's view (opaque back). Objects placed in both shared (visible to both) and privileged (visible only to participant) slots.
+
+**Critical trials**: Director instructs participant to move an object, but the instruction is ambiguous -- the correct referent from the director's perspective differs from what the participant can see.
+
+**Measures**:
+
+| Measure | Description |
+|---------|-------------|
+| Accuracy | Correct object selection (director's perspective) |
+| Egocentric errors | Selecting the privileged-ground object |
+| Eye movements | Fixations to competitor in privileged ground |
+| Response time | Time to correct selection |
+
+**Key findings**:
+- Adults make egocentric errors on ~**30-50%** of critical trials (Keysar et al., 2003)
+- Improves from childhood through late adolescence (Dumontheil et al., 2010)
+- Autistic individuals show more egocentric errors (Begeer et al., 2010)
+
+---
+
+## 5. Implicit / Spontaneous ToM Tasks
+
+### Anticipatory Looking False Belief
+
+**Citation**: Southgate, Senju, & Csibra, 2007
+
+**Age**: 25 months (and adapted for younger infants)
+
+**Procedure**: Agent watches object placed in one of two boxes. Object is moved while agent is absent (or present, in control). Measure infant's anticipatory gaze to where agent will search.
+
+**Measure**: First look direction after agent returns (before agent acts)
+
+**Dependent variable**: Proportion of correct anticipatory looks (to where agent falsely believes object is)
+
+### Violation-of-Expectation False Belief
+
+**Citation**: Onishi & Baillargeon, 2005
+
+**Age**: 15 months
+
+**Procedure**: Agent sees object in location A. Object moves to location B (agent absent). Agent reaches to A (expected) or B (unexpected from agent's perspective).
+
+**Measure**: Looking time to expected vs. unexpected reaching action.
+
+**Expected result**: Longer looking at unexpected reaching (agent reaches to B when she should believe it is at A).
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+- Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a "theory of mind"? *Cognition*, 21(1), 37-46.
+- Baron-Cohen, S., O'Riordan, M., Stone, V., Jones, R., & Plaisted, K. (1999). Recognition of faux pas by normally developing children and children with Asperger syndrome. *JADD*, 29(5), 407-418.
+- Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test revised version. *JCPP*, 42(2), 241-251.
+- Begeer, S., Malle, B. F., Nieuwland, M. S., & Keysar, B. (2010). Using theory of mind to represent and take part in social interactions. *Social Cognition*, 28(5), 675-695.
+- Dumontheil, I., Apperly, I. A., & Blakemore, S. J. (2010). Online usage of theory of mind continues to develop in late adolescence. *Developmental Science*, 13(2), 331-338.
+- Fernandez-Abascal, E. G., et al. (2013). Test-retest reliability of the RMET. *JADD*, 43(9), 2220-2223.
+- Gopnik, A., & Astington, J. W. (1988). Children's understanding of representational change. *Child Development*, 59(1), 26-37.
+- Happe, F. G. (1994). An advanced test of theory of mind. *JADD*, 24(2), 129-154.
+- Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. *Cognition*, 89(1), 25-41.
+- Olderbak, S., et al. (2015). A psychometric analysis of the RMET. *Assessment*, 22(6), 798-806.
+- Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? *Science*, 308(5719), 255-258.
+- Perner, J., Leekam, S. R., & Wimmer, H. (1987). Three-year-olds' difficulty with false belief. *BJDP*, 5(2), 125-137.
+- Perner, J., & Wimmer, H. (1985). "John thinks that Mary thinks that..." *JECP*, 39(3), 437-471.
+- Southgate, V., Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2007). Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. *Psychological Science*, 18(7), 587-592.
+- Stone, V. E., Baron-Cohen, S., & Knight, R. T. (1998). Frontal lobe contributions to theory of mind. *JOCN*, 10(5), 640-656.
+- Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. *Child Development*, 75(2), 523-541.
+- Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs. *Cognition*, 13(1), 103-128.