Shannon Burns, PhD
LightNews LightNews
banner
shannon47burns.bsky.social
Shannon Burns, PhD
@shannon47burns.bsky.social
980 followers 160 following 39 posts
Assistant Professor of Psychological Science & Neuroscience at Pomona College in Claremont, CA
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
ianhussey.mmmdata.io
Keeping this at hand in case I need to point to it and tap
December 12, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
bjoernhommel.bsky.social
🚨 SynthNet is out 🚨
Researchers propose new constructs and measures faster than anyone can track. We (@anniria.bsky.social @ruben.the100.ci) built a search engine to check what already exists and help identify redundancies; indexing 74,000 scales from ~31,500 instruments in APA PsycTests. 🧵1/3
November 26, 2025 at 11:42 AM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
hyogweon.bsky.social
Officially out! In this review, Aaron Chuey and I discuss how existing work on ToM mostly focused on a single individual’s mental states (e.g., what Sally thinks). Extending ToM, we argue for ToMS—an understanding of how multiple individuals communicate and influence each others’ minds. t.ly/u4rtb
Theory of Minds: Early Understanding of Interacting Minds
The idea that we understand others’ actions in terms of their underlying mental states has shaped decades of developmental research on social cognition. Existing work, however, has primarily focused o...
www.annualreviews.org
December 10, 2025 at 11:30 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
cfiesler.bsky.social
Let me tell you a story. Perhaps you can guess where this is going... though it does have a bit of a twist.

I was poking around Google Scholar for publications about the relationship between chatbots and wellness. Oh how useful: a systematic literature review! Let's dig into the findings. 🧵
The Psychological Impact of Digital Isolation: How AI-Driven Social Interactions Shape Human Behavior and Mental Well-Being Felix Eling 3697-3705 Apr 30, 2025 Education The Psychological Impact of Digital Isolation: How AI-Driven Social Interactions Shape Human Behavior and Mental Well-Being Felix Eling Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Pharmacy, Gulu College of Health Sciences, Gulu City, Northern Uganda DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90400265 Received: 13 March 2025; Revised: 22 March 2025; Accepted: 25 March 2025; Published: 30 April 2025 ABSTRACT The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in social interactions has transformed how humans experience companionship, communication, and mental well-being. This review examines the psychological impact of AI-driven social interactions, focusing on virtual assistants, AI chatbots, and digital companions. It explores the benefits, risks, and ethical concerns associated with AI companionship. A systematic review methodology was employed, detailing inclusion criteria, databases searched, and analysis techniques. Findings suggest that while AI can offer emotional relief and support, over-reliance may disrupt real-world social bonding. Ethical concerns such as data privacy, emotional manipulation, and regulatory gaps are highlighted. The study underscores the need for balanced AI integration in human socialization. The study also addresses gaps in previous literature by examining AI’s influence on different demographic groups and cultural contexts.
December 5, 2025 at 10:35 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
tomhollenstein.bsky.social
So...my undergrad thesis student is doing a quality analysis of studies found in meta-analyses. She identified a few and we contacted the authors to request their effect sizes and other variables for the studies in their papers.

Here's what happened:

scientiapsychiatrica.com/index.php/Sc...
The Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis | Scientia Psychiatrica
Introduction: The proliferation of social media has raised significant concerns about its potential effects on the mental health of adolescents. This meta-analysis aims to provide a comprehensive asse...
scientiapsychiatrica.com
December 7, 2025 at 11:11 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
naitian.org
A couple years (!) in the making: we’re releasing a new corpus of embodied, collaborative problem solving dialogues. We paid 36 people to play Portal 2’s co-op mode and collected their speech + game recordings.

Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2512.03381
Website: berkeley-nlp.github.io/portal-dialo...

1/n
A figure demonstrating the different aspects of the corpus described in the tweet. There is a main isomorphic 3D view of a level in the Portal 2 co-op game, with some portals, lasers, and the blue and orange players. Inset, there are first-person captures of the blue and orange player views. There is also a box containing the transcribed dialogue with timestamps and labels for the discursive acts. Finally, there is a box containing a task and a list of subtasks. Some subtasks are already crossed out, with the time that they have been completed. The last subtask ("Player 2 places portal 4 on wall 4") is marked incomplete. The dialogue is as follows: Blue: Can you put your other portal up here? (tagged as directive) Orange: Where? (tagged as request for clarification) Blue: On uh, on this wall. (tagged as directive) Blue: So that it uh points at the circle. (tagged as directive) Orange: Okay. (tagged as commit) The full list of subtasks is: Task: Redirect lasers Subtask: Player 1 places portal 1 on wall 1. (completed) Subtask: Player 1 polaces portal 2 on wall 2 or 3. (completed) Subtask: Player 2 places portal 3 opposite of portal 2. (completed) Subtask: Player 2 places portal 4 on wall 4. (incomplete)
December 5, 2025 at 6:54 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
sandervanbree.bsky.social
New preprint w/ Malin Styrnal & @martinhebart.bsky.social

Have you ever computed noise ceilings to understand how well a model performs? We wrote a clarifying note on a subtle and common misapplication that can make models appear quite a lot better than they are.

osf.io/preprints/ps...
OSF
osf.io
December 4, 2025 at 6:53 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
annemscheel.bsky.social
1) With the conventional alpha = 5% and a huge sample, you may have extremely high power for your effect of interest – say, 99.9%. That means beta (type-II error rate) = 0.1%. Are you sure that you want your type-I error rate to be 50x the size of your type-II error rate? >
October 31, 2025 at 8:13 AM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
aanixel.bsky.social
Excited to see these studies (finally) published in Scientific Reports! 🚨

S1: More social media users perceived themselves as addicted than met clinical addiction criteria.

S2: Increasing perceived addiction hurt perceived control over use and increased self-blame for overuse.

Thread below... 🧵
This plot shows the number of users in the Study 1 sample that self-described as 'addicted' to Instagram versus those who were 'at risk' of clinical addiction. The ratios for the addiction symptom scale are 9:371 and for the perceived addiction 69: 311, suggesting a much greater proportion of users self-perceive as addicted than are actually addicted to Instagram
November 29, 2025 at 2:33 AM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
pgmj.bsky.social
geomtextpath can really help make a plot easier to interpret. Nice to avoid using a legend. #rstats #dataviz
Two plots side by side showing time in weeks on x axis and probability of returning to work on the y axis. The left hand plot shows the trajectory of two groups (self-efficacy improved or not improved), while the right hand plot shows the probability difference between the two groups.
December 2, 2025 at 1:09 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
jordanaxt.bsky.social
Implicit racial attitudes accounted for ~2.5% of variance in behavior beyond explicit racial attitudes, an effect size that was *just* over our agreed upon threshold for what would constitute a practically significant effect. Explicit racial attitudes still explained much more variance (~45%).
December 2, 2025 at 2:14 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
igrrrl.bsky.social
Things I currently think you should be considering in your proposals. Although this thread will be NIH-centric, my guess is that some of this applies to NSF, etc. Much is synthesized from public information. Much of this is what we've advised all along, just with, um, more emphasis.

Here we go:
November 25, 2025 at 3:27 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
annhuang42.bsky.social
📍Excited to share that our paper was selected as a Spotlight at #NeurIPS2025!

arxiv.org/pdf/2410.03972

It started from a question I kept running into:

When do RNNs trained on the same task converge/diverge in their solutions?
🧵⬇️
November 24, 2025 at 4:43 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
gangchen6.bsky.social
Is the “standard workflow” holding back fMRI analysis?

Mass-univariate analysis is still the bread-and-butter: intuitive, fast… and chronically overfitted. Add harsh multiple-comparison penalties, and we patch the workflow with statistical band-aids. No wonder the stringency debates never die.
November 18, 2025 at 10:13 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
canalesjohnson.bsky.social
Delighted to share our new Perspective article @natrevneuro.nature.com, led by the great @edoardochidichimo.bsky.social : "Towards an informational account of interpersonal coordination". With @loopyluppi.bsky.social, Pedro Mediano, @introspection.bsky.social, Victoria Leong and Richard Bethlehem.
November 19, 2025 at 2:27 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
joshmccrain.bsky.social
new paper by Sean Westwood:

With current technology, it is impossible to tell whether survey respondents are real or bots. Among other things, makes it easy for bad actors to manipulate outcomes. No good news here for the future of online-based survey research
November 18, 2025 at 7:16 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
sfiscience.bsky.social
For undergraduates curious about complex systems research, applications are now open for the 2026 Undergraduate Complexity Research (UCR) program — a fully funded, 10-week summer research experience at the Santa Fe Institute.

Apply by Jan. 14, 2026: santafe.edu/ucr
November 17, 2025 at 6:30 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
mehr.nz
periodic reminder of the existence of Atkinson Hyperlegible, a free font available from the Braille Institute designed to improve readability for people with low vision

I use it in talks because it's pretty and also because, as an audience member, I am perpetually squinting at people's slides
Atkinson Hyperlegible Font - Braille Institute
Read easier with Atkinson Hyperlegible Font, crafted for low-vision readers. Download for free and enjoy clear letters and numbers on your computer!
www.brailleinstitute.org
November 17, 2025 at 4:19 AM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
wimpouw.bsky.social
Our paper @sarabogels.bsky.social covering our pre-registered multi-year research is now finally out in Cognition. We show that in conversations people reduce their multimodal signals non-linearly; the steeper this non-linear drop-off the more communicative success.

www.wimpouw.com/files/Bogels...
A busy figure showing how reduction of different types of multimodal signals reduces over experimental rounds (with a comparison of how a non-linear signal following a power law can be transformed to a linear slope using a log-transformation).
November 11, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
emilydolson.bsky.social
Remembering the time in grad school when a Black PhD student at the next desk over was doing computer vision research. He was testing out a facial recognition tool using his own face as a reference, but it wasn't working. So he asked a (white) colleague to try it, and of course it worked for her.
josephcox.bsky.social Joseph Cox @josephcox.bsky.social · Oct 29
New incredible detail here: ICE says a match in its facial recognition app Mobile Fortify is a "definitive" determination of a person's status, and that this overrides birth certificates. This is an app ICE is using in the field to scan people

www.404media.co/ice-and-cbp-...
Ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee Bennie G. Thompson said in a statement “Mobile Fortify is a dangerous tool in the hands of ICE, and it puts American citizens at risk of detention and even deportation.” He also said “ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien. ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.”
October 29, 2025 at 10:33 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
matti.vuorre.com
🎉 @rpsychologist.com 's PowerLMM.js is the online statistics application of the year 2025 🎉

powerlmmjs.rpsychologist.com

- Calculate power (etc) for multilevel models
- Examine effects of dropout and other important parameters
- Fast! (Instant results)
Screenshot of https://powerlmmjs.rpsychologist.com/
October 28, 2025 at 2:37 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
biologicalpsych.bsky.social
Sookud and colleagues found that individuals with higher compulsivity and intrusive thoughts develop a less certain internal understanding of the external world, and this mediates the link between symptoms and goal-directed behaviors.
Impaired goal-directed planning in transdiagnostic compulsivity is explained by uncertainty about learned task structure
Diminished use of goal-directed (“model-based”) decision-making is a hallmark of transdiagnostic compulsivity, promoting an over-reliance on inflexible and habitual behaviours. However, the origin of ...
www.biologicalpsychiatrycnni.org
October 27, 2025 at 4:02 PM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
jamielarsh.bsky.social
Fundamental features of social environments determine rate of social affiliation www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
October 18, 2025 at 10:34 AM
Reposted by Shannon Burns, PhD
mpi-nl.bsky.social
Gestural and verbal evidence of conceptual representation differences in blind and sighted individuals. New publication by @ezgimamus.bsky.social & al. with @asliozyurek.bsky.social. doi.org/10.1111/cogs....
Gestural and Verbal Evidence of Conceptual Representation Differences in Blind and Sighted Individuals
This preregistered study examined whether visual experience influences conceptual representations by examining both gestural expression and feature listing. Gestures—mostly driven by analog mappings ....
doi.org
October 15, 2025 at 10:59 AM