4.4 Article

Theory of mind abilities in patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

Journal

EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 53, Issue -, Pages 20-24

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.09.036

Keywords

Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures; Facial affect recognition; Alexithymia; Theory of mind

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) have been frequently linked to deficits in affect regulation and altered processing of emotionally salient information. However, less is known about how patients suffering from PNES actually process and interpret affective social stimuli. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate basal facial affect recognition as well as mind-reading skills in a sample of patients with PNES and matched control subjects. Methods: Patients with PNES (N=15) and healthy controls (N=15) completed self-report questionnaires that measured alexithymia and perceived stress vulnerability. Affect perception was tested using a series of computerized movies of models whose facial expressions slowly change from neutral to full-blown emotions (anger, fear, sadness, happiness, disgust, and surprise), allowing for a fine-grained assessment of facial emotion recognition impairments. Further, all participants were presented with the Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition, a well-validated video-based test for the evaluation of subtle mind-reading deficits. Results: Data analyses revealed increased alexithymic traits and, impaired mentalizing skills in individuals with PNES, while basal facial expression recognition was not compromised. Discussion: The present findings are the first to demonstrate that patients with PNES exhibit several deficits in reasoning about their own and other people's mental states. Patients with PNES may benefit from psychotherapeutic interventions that focus on disturbed affect regulation and aim to enhance emotional awareness. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available