4.7 Review

Meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal oxytocin on interpretation and expression of emotions

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
Volume 78, Issue -, Pages 125-144

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.010

Keywords

Oxytocin; Theory of mind; Emotion recognition; Emotion expression

Funding

  1. Psychiatry Research Trust
  2. Singapore General Hospital
  3. Swiss Anorexia Foundation
  4. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Mental Health Biomedical Research at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, and King's College London

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurate interpretation and appropriate expression of emotions are key aspects of social-cognition. Several mental disorders are characterised by transdiagnostic difficulties in these areas and, recently, there has been increasing interest in exploring the effects of oxytocin on social-emotional functioning. This review consists of 33 studies. Fifteen of the studies included people with autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, frontotemporal dementia, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and opioid and alcohol dependence. We conducted ten meta-analyses examining the effects of intranasal oxytocin on expression of emotions, emotional theory of mind, sensitivity to recognise basic emotions, and recognition of basic emotions. A single dose of intranasal oxytocin significantly improved the recognition of basic emotions, particularly fear, and increased the expression of positive emotions among the healthy individuals. Oxytocin did not significantly influence theory of mind or the expression of negative emotions among the healthy individuals. Finally, intranasal oxytocin did not significantly influence interpretation or expression of emotions among the clinical populations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available