Social Cognition
Dot Perspective Task
Also called: dot task, visual perspective taking task, level 1 perspective taking task, Samson dot task
Measure how one's own view and another person's interfere: participants check a number against the dots they see or the dots a drawn person sees, scored by altercentric and egocentric interference.
9-11 minTimed: desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 30
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures how another person's view and one's own interfere. A drawn room shows red dots on its walls and a person facing one wall. Participants check a number against the dots they see, or against the dots the person sees. The main score is the altercentric interference: how much slower one's own judgments are when the person sees fewer dots.
Constructs
- Visual perspective taking
- Theory of mind
- Self-other distinction
- Social attention
Research uses
- Theory of mind and social cognition research
- Perspective taking across development and aging
- Research on autism and social difficulties
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The Dot Perspective Task measures how one's own view of a scene and another person's view interfere. Each trial shows a word that says whose view to judge, YOU for one's own or PERSON for the person in the room, then a digit from 0 to 3, then a room seen from the side with red dots on its walls and a person standing in the middle, facing one wall. Participants press F when the digit is the number of dots in that view and J when it is not. On consistent pictures every dot is on the wall the person faces, so both views count the same; on inconsistent pictures some dots are behind the person, who then sees fewer.
More about the paradigm
The task follows Experiment 1 of Samson and colleagues (2010): a cross for 750 ms, a blank for 500 ms, the cue for 750 ms, a blank for 500 ms, the digit for 750 ms, and the room until a response or 2,000 ms, with own-view and person-view trials mixed in every block. The room and the person were drawn for this test; the source used a rendered avatar of the participant's gender and the words she or he. Each block of 52 trials holds 24 trials with the right digit, 24 with a wrong one and 4 rooms with no dots. As in the source, a wrong digit on an inconsistent picture is the count in the other view, and only trials with the right digit are analyzed. The standard session runs 16 practice trials with feedback, then 2 blocks; studies can set 2 to 4, and 4 give the source's 24 scored trials per condition.
Altercentric interference is the slowing of one's own judgments when the person sees fewer dots: mean correct response time on inconsistent minus consistent own-view trials. In the source it was 48 ms with mixed blocks, and it remained when participants judged only their own view, but not when a rectangle stood in place of the person. Egocentric interference is the same difference on person-view trials, 107 ms in the source. Both are also given in percent errors. Whether the altercentric effect reflects computing what the person sees or a shift of attention in the direction the figure faces is debated (Santiesteban and colleagues, 2014; Furlanetto and colleagues, 2016). Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Altercentric Interferencems
- Mean correct response time on own-view trials where the person sees fewer dots, minus where both views agree.
- Positive when the person's view slows one's own
- Egocentric Interferencems
- The same difference on person-view trials.
- Positive when one's own view slows judging the person's
- Altercentric Interference, Errors%
- Percent errors on inconsistent minus consistent own-view trials.
- Positive when the person's view causes errors
- Egocentric Interference, Errors%
- Percent errors on inconsistent minus consistent person-view trials.
- Positive when one's own view causes errors
- Own View, Consistent RTms
- Mean correct response time on own-view trials where both views agree.
- Informational
- Own View, Inconsistent RTms
- Mean correct response time on own-view trials where the person sees fewer dots.
- Informational
- Person's View, Consistent RTms
- Mean correct response time on person-view trials where both views agree.
- Informational
- Person's View, Inconsistent RTms
- Mean correct response time on person-view trials where the person sees fewer dots.
- Informational
- Own View, Consistent Errors%
- Percent errors on own-view trials where both views agree.
- Lower is better
- Own View, Inconsistent Errors%
- Percent errors on own-view trials where the person sees fewer dots.
- Lower is better
- Person's View, Consistent Errors%
- Percent errors on person-view trials where both views agree.
- Lower is better
- Person's View, Inconsistent Errors%
- Percent errors on person-view trials where the person sees fewer dots.
- Lower is better
- Percent Correct%
- Correct answers over every test trial, including trials with a wrong digit and rooms with no dots. Misses count as errors.
- Higher is better
- Omissionscount
- Trials with no key within 2,000 ms of the room.
- Lower is better
- Anticipationscount
- Keys pressed under 100 ms after the room appeared; left out of the response times.
- Lower is better
- Total Trialstrials
- Test trials scored.
- Informational
Use and evidence
30 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 200% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 300 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 7 |
| 2024 | 6 |
| 2023 | 7 |
| 2022 | 3 |
| 2021 | 7 |
| 2020 | 2 |
| 2019 | 2 |
| 2018 | 2 |
| 2017 | 2 |
| 2016 | 2 |
| 2015 | 0 |
| 2014 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1 |
| 2012 | 0 |
| 2011 | 0 |
| 2010 | 0 |
| 2009 | 0 |
| 2008 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 4
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Display
- A room seen from the side, drawn in code: left, back and right walls, 0 to 3 red dots on the side walls, and a person standing in the middle who faces the left or the right wall.
- Trial
- A cross for 750 ms, a blank for 500 ms, the word YOU or PERSON for 750 ms, a blank for 500 ms and a digit from 0 to 3 for 750 ms, then the room until a response or 2,000 ms.
- Response
- F when the digit is the number of dots in the cued view and J when it is not. YOU asks for every dot in the room; PERSON asks for the dots on the wall the person faces.
- Pictures
- Consistent pictures put every dot on the wall the person faces, so both views count the same; inconsistent pictures put some dots behind the person, who then sees fewer. Each picture appears with the person facing either way.
- Trial mix
- Each block of 52 trials holds 6 trials of each view on consistent and on inconsistent pictures with the right digit, as many with a wrong digit, and 4 trials with no dots. A wrong digit on an inconsistent picture is the count in the other view. Own-view and person-view trials are mixed; no more than 3 in a row share a view or an answer, and each view follows itself and the other about equally often.
- Blocks
- 2 blocks (standard; 2 to 4), with a break between them, in an order drawn from the session's seed.
- Practice
- 16 trials with feedback.
- Scores
- Altercentric interference: on own-view trials, the mean correct response time on inconsistent minus consistent pictures. Egocentric interference: the same on person-view trials. Both also in percent errors. As in the source, only trials with the right digit count, and a condition needs at least 4 correct answers.
Samson and colleagues (2010) showed a rendered avatar of the participant's gender and asked about "she" or "he". This version draws one person and names that view PERSON, in each of the app's languages. Whether the interference needs a mind behind the figure is debated: an arrow can produce a similar effect (Santiesteban and colleagues, 2014), while blocking the figure's view can remove it (Furlanetto and colleagues, 2016). The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: dot_perspective_test from the scored run, every own-view and person-view trial, matching, mismatching and without dots: F when the digit is right for the cued view and J when not, within 2,000 ms of the room (chance 50%, each answer on half the trials). Below chance invalidates and not above chance is flagged. One key on 90% of answers invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. Missed responses and responses under 100 ms follow the timed-test rule. An interference score that cannot be computed, with fewer than 4 correct answers in a condition, is flagged.
Why these rules
Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). Missed responses and responses under 100 ms keep the platform's timed-test rule: more than max(3, 25%) missed responses or more than max(2, 20%) responses under 100 ms invalidate, and any is flagged. A response under 100 ms cannot be a reaction to the stimulus. A mean response time from fewer than 4 correct answers would be too unstable to compare.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Blocks | 2 | 2 to 4 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Dot Perspective Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Samson D, Apperly IA, Braithwaite JJ, Andrews BJ, Bodley Scott SE, 2010), with the standard settings (blocks: 2). The main score was altercentric interference (mean correct response time on own-view trials where the person sees fewer dots, minus where both views agree).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Samson, D., Apperly, I. A., Braithwaite, J. J., Andrews, B. J., & Bodley Scott, S. E. (2010). Seeing it their way: Evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1255-1266. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018729
- Qureshi, A. W., Apperly, I. A., & Samson, D. (2010). Executive function is necessary for perspective selection, not Level-1 visual perspective calculation: Evidence from a dual-task study of adults. Cognition, 117(2), 230-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.003Selecting a view, not computing it, draws on executive control.
- Santiesteban, I., Catmur, C., Hopkins, S. C., Bird, G., & Heyes, C. (2014). Avatars and arrows: Implicit mentalizing or domain-general processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(3), 929-937. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035175An arrow as a nonsocial comparison.
- Furlanetto, T., Becchio, C., Samson, D., & Apperly, I. (2016). Altercentric interference in level 1 visual perspective taking reflects the ascription of mental states, not submentalizing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(2), 158-163. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000138Interference when the figure can see and not when its view is blocked.
Source papers
- Samson D, Apperly IA, Braithwaite JJ, Andrews BJ, Bodley Scott SE (2010). Seeing it their way: evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5):1255-1266.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Dot Perspective Task take?
About 9 to 11 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Altercentric Interference, Egocentric Interference, Altercentric Interference, Errors, Egocentric Interference, Errors, Own View, Consistent RT, Own View, Inconsistent RT, Person's View, Consistent RT, Person's View, Inconsistent RT, Own View, Consistent Errors, Own View, Inconsistent Errors, Person's View, Consistent Errors, Person's View, Inconsistent Errors, Percent Correct, Omissions, Anticipations and Total Trials. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Dot Perspective Task used in research?
30 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 200% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 300 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Dot Perspective Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Blocks (2 to 4). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.
Related tests