4.3 Article

Theory of Mind and Emotional Awareness Deficits in Patients With Somatoform Disorders

期刊

PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE
卷 72, 期 4, 页码 404-411

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181d35e83

关键词

somatization; emotional awareness; alexithymia; theory of mind

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To explore whether deficits are present in the mental representation of emotion signals and whether these are related to more general deficits in Theory of Mind (ToM) functioning test. To test this hypothesis in patients suffering from somatoform disorders, we used the Frith-Happe-Animations Task (AT)-an established ToM measure. We previously demonstrated that somatization in psychiatric patients is associated with decreased emotional awareness as measured by the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS). These findings suggest that individuals with decreased emotional awareness often fail to experience affective arousal as feelings and instead experience emotional distress somatically. Methods: We administered the AT and the LEAS to 30 hospitalized patients with somatoform disorders and 30 healthy controls matched for sex, age, and educational level. Emotional awareness on the LEAS, the emotional content of AT narratives, and ToM content on the AT were assessed. Results: Patients with somatoform disorders scored significantly lower on the LEAS than healthy controls. Patients also demonstrated both reduced emotional content and reduced ToM functioning on the AT compared with control subjects. Deficits in ToM functioning in patients overlapped with but were not fully explained by deficits in the emotional content of animation narratives. The combination of ToM functioning and LEAS scores permitted a correct classification of 80% of patients and 73% of controls. Conclusions: Patients with somatoform disorders requiring inpatient treatment manifest deficits in both emotional awareness and ToM functioning. These deficits may underlie the phenomenon of somatization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据