Alexithymia and sensory processing sensitivity account for unique variance in the prediction of emotional contagion and empathy

IntroductionEmpathy—the ability to identify and share another person’s emotional state—is an important socio-emotional process arising, in part, from emotional contagion. In the current study, we assessed unique variance in emotional contagion and other empathy-related constructs accounted for by two personality traits, alexithymia and sensory processing sensitivity (SPS), when controlling for childhood emotional abuse and current depressed mood.MethodsA sample of 305 adults (Mage = 20.1 years) watched brief film clips chosen to induce various emotional states. After each film, the participants rated how strongly they experienced each of nine different emotions. They then completed self-report measures of alexithymia, SPS, empathy-related constructs, childhood emotional abuse, and current mood.ResultsThose scoring high (vs. low) on SPS reported stronger primary emotions and a larger range of emotions when watching the films and were more apt to believe that their emotions matched those of the individuals featured in the films. They also scored higher on both self-oriented processes (such as the tendency to feel personal distress in tense situations) and other-oriented processes (such as perspective taking and empathic concern) related to empathy. Individuals scoring high (vs. low) on alexithymia reported feeling a larger range of emotions while watching the films but scored lower on other-oriented processes related to empathy. After controlling for SPS and alexithymia, current depressed mood predicted experiencing less varied reactions to mixed valence films that elicited strong feelings of embarrassment/humiliation, and less amusement when watching positive films. Childhood emotional abuse did not emerge as a predictor of emotional contagion or empathy.DiscussionWe propose that the strong and nuanced feelings elicited in those scoring high on SPS by observing others support their personal view that they are highly empathic. In contrast, by failing to closely examine their own mixed reactions to others, individuals with alexithymia may find it difficult to connect with, understand, and respond to others’ feelings

Descent toward the icehouse: Eocene sea surface cooling inferred from GDGT distributions

The TEX86 proxy, based on the distribution of marine isoprenoidal glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraether lipids (GDGTs), is increasingly used to reconstruct sea surface temperature (SST) during the Eocene epoch (56.0–33.9 Ma). Here we compile published TEX86 records, critically reevaluate them in light of new understandings in TEX86 palaeothermometry, and supplement them with new data in order to evaluate long-term temperature trends in the Eocene. We investigate the effect of archaea other than marine Thaumarchaeota upon TEX86 values using the branched-to-isoprenoid tetraether index (BIT), the abundance of GDGT-0 relative to crenarchaeol (%GDGT-0), and the Methane Index (MI). We also introduce a new ratio, % GDGTRS, which may help identify Red Sea-type GDGT distributions in the geological record. Using the offset between TEX86H and TEX86L(ΔH-L) and the ratio between GDGT-2 and GDGT-3 ([2]/[3]), we evaluate different TEX86 calibrations and present the first integrated SST compilation for the Eocene (55 to 34 Ma). Although the available data are still sparse some geographic trends can now be resolved. In the high latitudes (>55°), there was substantial cooling during the Eocene (~6°C). Our compiled record also indicates tropical cooling of ~2.5°C during the same interval. Using an ensemble of climate model simulations that span the Eocene, our results indicate that only a small percentage (~10%) of the reconstructed temperature change can be ascribed to ocean gateway reorganization or paleogeographic change. Collectively, this indicates that atmospheric carbon dioxide (pCO2) was the likely driver of surface water cooling during the descent toward the icehouse

Data_Sheet_1_Alexithymia and sensory processing sensitivity account for unique variance in the prediction of emotional contagion and empathy.docx

IntroductionEmpathy—the ability to identify and share another person’s emotional state—is an important socio-emotional process arising, in part, from emotional contagion. In the current study, we assessed unique variance in emotional contagion and other empathy-related constructs accounted for by two personality traits, alexithymia and sensory processing sensitivity (SPS), when controlling for childhood emotional abuse and current depressed mood.MethodsA sample of 305 adults (Mage = 20.1 years) watched brief film clips chosen to induce various emotional states. After each film, the participants rated how strongly they experienced each of nine different emotions. They then completed self-report measures of alexithymia, SPS, empathy-related constructs, childhood emotional abuse, and current mood.ResultsThose scoring high (vs. low) on SPS reported stronger primary emotions and a larger range of emotions when watching the films and were more apt to believe that their emotions matched those of the individuals featured in the films. They also scored higher on both self-oriented processes (such as the tendency to feel personal distress in tense situations) and other-oriented processes (such as perspective taking and empathic concern) related to empathy. Individuals scoring high (vs. low) on alexithymia reported feeling a larger range of emotions while watching the films but scored lower on other-oriented processes related to empathy. After controlling for SPS and alexithymia, current depressed mood predicted experiencing less varied reactions to mixed valence films that elicited strong feelings of embarrassment/humiliation, and less amusement when watching positive films. Childhood emotional abuse did not emerge as a predictor of emotional contagion or empathy.DiscussionWe propose that the strong and nuanced feelings elicited in those scoring high on SPS by observing others support their personal view that they are highly empathic. In contrast, by failing to closely examine their own mixed reactions to others, individuals with alexithymia may find it difficult to connect with, understand, and respond to others’ feelings.</p

Traits linked to sensory processing sensitivity mediate the relationship between externally oriented thinking and fantasizing

IntroductionAlexithymia is characterized by difficulties identifying and describing feelings but expression of externally oriented thinking (EOT) and difficulty fantasizing is more variable. In two studies, we investigated whether links between EOT and fantasizing are mediated by sensory processing sensitivity (SPS).MethodsUniversity students completed measures of alexithymia, SPS, and fantasizing.ResultsIn Study 1 (N = 700) we identified two clusters of SPS traits: a positive facet (sensitivity to subtle stimuli) and a negative facet (sensitivity to uncomfortable stimuli). In the 499 participants who completed the fantasy measure, low EOT scores predicted stronger SPS positive and negative traits, which predicted a stronger tendency to mentally project oneself into the lives of characters in books, movies, and plays. In Study 2 (N = 600), the link between EOT and this same fantasizing tendency was again mediated by features of SPS—in this case fantasy proneness and emotional reactivity.DiscussionWe suggest that, whereas individuals who score high on EOT have an impoverished fantasy life, those who score relatively low on EOT and turn their attention inward are able to maintain stronger representations of imagined events in working memory (enhancing the likelihood that they will be recalled) and react more strongly to these events (enhancing their salience). Stronger expression of these features of SPS, in turn, increases the likelihood that one will develop a cognitive style that involves the application of imagery-based strategies to support deep processing of the thoughts and feelings of characters depicted in narratives

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics