4.6 Article

Reading the mind in the eyes in PTSD: Limited Moderation by the presence of a service dog

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
Volume 155, Issue -, Pages 320-330

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.09.012

Keywords

Stress disorders; Post-traumatic; Social cognition; Expressed emotions

Categories

Funding

  1. Military Operational Medical Research Program, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command [W81XWH-15-2-0005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the performance of U.S. military veterans with PTSD in the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET). The presence of a service dog did not improve their social cognitive abilities.
Persons with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) frequently experience relationship failures in family and occupational domains resulting in loss of social supports. Prior research has implicated impairments in social cognition. The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) measures a key component of social cognition, the ability to infer the internal states of other persons based on features of the eyes region of the face; however, studies administering this popular test to persons with PTSD have yielded mixed results. This study assessed RMET performance in 47 male U.S. military Veterans with chronic, severe PTSD. Employing a within-subjects design that avoided selection biases, it aimed specifically to determine whether components of RMET performance, including accuracy, response latency, and stimulus dwell time, were improved by the company of a service dog, an intervention that has improved social function in other populations. RMET accuracies and response latencies in this PTSD sample were in the normal range. The presence of a familiar service dog did not improve RMET accuracy, reduce response latencies, or increase dwell times. Dog presence increased the speed of visual scanning perhaps consistent with reduced social fear.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available