Adult Theory of Mind Test (ATOM)

Background

The Adult Theory of Mind Test (AToM) is a formal assessment tool used to measure an adult's ability to understand the beliefs, intentions, and emotions of others ('Theory of Mind - ToM') using video scenarios of (scripted) real-life interactions. The test was developed by Neil Brewer and colleagues in 2017 to address missing standardized test procedures and provide reliable normative data to study adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

The test consists of 12 scenarios that are largely based on the "Strange Story Tests" by Francesca G. E. Happé published in 1994. The former paper-pencil content of the selected "Strange" stories (plus four new stories designed by Brewer et al) was scripted and professionally filmed. Six of the 12 scenarios require a more "physical" interpretation of the scene (e.g. "why did he stop at the intersection?" -> "Because there was a Stop sign") and function as "control" items that should not be problematic for people with ASD. The remaining six scenarios address various social situations that traditionally prove to be more difficult for people with ASD, ranging from situations involving sarcasm, white lies, faux pas and others.

After each scenario is played, participants are asked to answer a scenario-specific open-ended question. In addition, a few of the (social) scenarios also pose yes/no questions about the scene. Participants get 1 minute to provide their answers. The time limit is intentional to discourage participants from using slow, deliberate logic to solve social problems instead of processing the scenario intuitively and instantly. All answers are scored on a scale from 1 to 3 using the scoring criteria provided by Brewer et al.

Millisecond's AToM script presents the videos (publicly accessible), asks the relevant questions, collects responses and enforces time-limits. However, response scoring must be done manually using the published guidelines; no automatic response scoring is implemented.

Task Procedure

After a short introduction to the test, participants watch the 12 videos in random order. After each scenario, participants receive a question (or two) and have 1 minute to provide an answer.

What it Measures

The Adult Theory of Mind Test (AToM) is a measure ToM abilities

Psychological domains

• Cognitive ToM: The ability to infer the beliefs and intentions of others
• Affective ToM: The ability to infer the emotional state of others
• Social Perception: Recognizing "rules" of social etiquette
• Working Memory: Participants must hold the details of the story in their head while simultaneously reasoning about the characters' internal states.
• Inhibitory Control: The ability to inhibit one's own knowledge to focus on a character's "false belief"
• Cognitive Flexibility: The ability to shift between different perspectives
• Language Comprehension: Ability to understand the literal meaning of the story before making social inferences

Main Performance Metrics

This script does not provide main accuracy performance metrics. Collected responses need to be scored manually by test administrators. The script provides some latency measures as a measure of potential processing deficits.

Psychiatric Conditions

The following patient groups show impaired performance on the AToM test

• Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

References

Search Google Scholar for peer-reviewed, published research using the Inquisit Adult Theory of Mind Test (ATOM).

---

Brewer, N., Young, R. L., & Barnett, E. (2017). Measuring Theory of Mind in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(7), 1927–1941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3080-x

Livingston, L. A., Carr, B., & Shah, P. (2019). Recent Advances and New Directions in Measuring Theory of Mind in Autistic Adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(4), 1738–1744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3823-3

Yeung, E. K. L., Apperly, I. A., & Devine, R. T. (2024). Measures of individual differences in adult theory of mind: A systematic review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 157, 105481–105481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105481