Exploring different explanations for performance on a theory of mind task in Williams syndrome and autism using eye movements.

Van Herwegen et al. (2015) watched where kids looked during a simple theory-of-mind task. They tested children with autism, Williams syndrome, and typical kids. The task used pictures and almost no words so language would not get in the way.

Eye-tracking cameras recorded every glance. The goal was to see if odd eye patterns explain why these groups fail false-belief tasks.

Both the autism and Williams groups still failed even when the task was visual and quiet. Their eyes moved like the typical kids; no strange gaze pattern showed up.

In short, poor eye gaze does not cause theory-of-mind errors in either disability.

Santos et al. (2009) first showed that kids with Williams syndrome pass verbal theory-of-mind tasks but fail visual ones. Jo adds eye-tracking and shows the visual failure is not about where they look.

Dahlgren et al. (2010) also used a low-verbal false-belief task in children with severe speech impairments. They found that cutting language helps accuracy; Jo echoes this by proving that when language is already minimal, gaze is not the next culprit.

Amorim et al. (2025) looked across autism, ADHD, and OCD and found that IQ and social communication scores predict theory-of-mind better than the diagnosis label. Jo’s eye-tracking data line up: once you control for language, biology-based gaze differences do not explain the score gap.

If a child fails a theory-of-mind task, do not jump to “atypical gaze” as the reason. First check if the task is too wordy or complex. Swap to picture-based or play-based tests, simplify instructions, and give extra time. Only after the task is lean and clear should you look at other skills like working memory or planning.