Characterizing psychological dimensions in non-pathological subjects through autonomic nervous system dynamics

The objective assessment of psychological traits of healthy subjects and psychiatric patients has been growing interest in clinical and bioengineering research fields during the last decade. Several experimental evidences strongly suggest that a link between Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) dynamics and specific dimensions such as anxiety, social phobia, stress, and emotional regulation might exist. Nevertheless, an extensive investigation on a wide range of psycho-cognitive scales and ANS non-invasive markers gathered from standard and non-linear analysis still needs to be addressed. In this study, we analyzed the discerning and correlation capabilities of a comprehensive set of ANS features and psycho-cognitive scales in 29 non-pathological subjects monitored during resting conditions. In particular, the state of the art of standard and non-linear analysis was performed on Heart Rate Variability, InterBreath Interval series, and InterBeat Respiration series, which were considered as monovariate and multivariate measurements. Experimental results show that each ANS feature is linked to specific psychological traits. Moreover, non-linear analysis outperforms the psychological assessment with respect to standard analysis. Considering that the current clinical practice relies only on subjective scores from interviews and questionnaires, this study provides objective tools for the assessment of psychological dimensions

Neurobiological Correlates of the Attitude Toward Human Empathy

Abstract: Over the last decade, integrated philosophical and neuroscientific studies of empathy have been steadily growing, because of the pivotal role that empathy plays in social cognition and ethics, as well as in the understanding of human behavior both under physiological conditions and in the presence of mental disorders. The umbrella concept of empathy embraces multi-faceted characteristics, including affective and cognitive processes, such as so-called emotional contagion and concern and perspective-taking. In this paper, we review the state-of-the-art of knowledge about the neurobiology of empathy. Specifically, we examine studies regarding empathy for pain, emotional imitation and expression and their alterations in psychopathological conditions. We also consider studies on the theory of mind (ToM) and the mirror neuron system (MNS). Finally, we propose measures of brain resting state activity as a potential neurobiological marker of proneness to be empathic.Keywords: Empathy; Mirror Neurons; Theory of Mind; Mental Disorders; Psychopathy Correlati neurobiologici della disposizione all’empatia umanaRiasssunto: Nell’ultimo decennio è cresciuto il numero delle indagini sull’empatia condotte integrando la prospettiva filosofica e quella neuroscientifica, in ragione del ruolo cardine svolto dall’empatia nella cognizione sociale e nell’etica, come pure nella comprensione del comportamento umano dal punto di vista delle condizioni fisiologiche e in presenza di disturbi mentali. La nozione di empatia funge da ombrello concettuale sotto cui ricadono caratteristiche multiformi, compresi i processi affettivi e cognitivi, come il cosiddetto contagio emotivo e l’assunzione di ruolo e di prospettiva. In questo lavoro intendiamo offrire una rassegna dello stato dell’arte delle conoscenze sulla neurobiologia dell’empatia. In particolare prenderemo in esame gli studi che vertono sull’empatia per il dolore, l’imitazione emotiva e dell’espressione e le loro alterazioni in condizioni psicopatologiche. Considereremo inoltre studi sulla teoria della mente (ToM) e sul sistema dei neuroni specchio (MNS). In sede conclusiva intendiamo proporre delle misure dell’attività cerebrale in condizioni di riposo come potenziale marcatore neurobiologico della propensione a empatizzare.Parole chiave: Empatia; Neuroni specchio; Teoria della mente; Disturbi mentali; Psicopati

Reviews and meta-analyses of psychotherapy efficacy for borderline personality disorder: reply

[no abstract available

Preserving equipoise and performing randomized trials for COVID-19 social distancing interventions.

International audienceIn the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a large number of non-pharmaceutical measures that pertain to the wider group of social distancing interventions (e.g. public gathering bans, closures of schools, workplaces and all but essential business, mandatory stay-at-home policies, travel restrictions, border closures and others) have been deployed. Their urgent deployment was defended with modelling and observational data of spurious credibility. There is major debate on whether these measures are effective and there is also uncertainty about the magnitude of the harms that these measures might induce. Given that there is equipoise for how, when and if specific social distancing interventions for COVID-19 should be applied and removed/modified during reopening, we argue that informative randomised-controlled trials are needed. Only a few such randomised trials have already been conducted, but the ones done to-date demonstrate that a randomised trials agenda is feasible. We discuss here issues of study design choice, selection of comparators (intervention and controls), choice of outcomes and additional considerations for the conduct of such trials. We also discuss and refute common counter-arguments against the conduct of such trials

<i>P</i> values in display items are ubiquitous and almost invariably significant: A survey of top science journals

<div><p><i>P</i> values represent a widely used, but pervasively misunderstood and fiercely contested method of scientific inference. Display items, such as figures and tables, often containing the main results, are an important source of <i>P</i> values. We conducted a survey comparing the overall use of <i>P</i> values and the occurrence of significant <i>P</i> values in display items of a sample of articles in the three top multidisciplinary journals (Nature, Science, PNAS) in 2017 and, respectively, in 1997. We also examined the reporting of multiplicity corrections and its potential influence on the proportion of statistically significant <i>P</i> values. Our findings demonstrated substantial and growing reliance on <i>P</i> values in display items, with increases of 2.5 to 14.5 times in 2017 compared to 1997. The overwhelming majority of <i>P</i> values (94%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 92% to 96%) were statistically significant. Methods to adjust for multiplicity were almost non-existent in 1997, but reported in many articles relying on <i>P</i> values in 2017 (Nature 68%, Science 48%, PNAS 38%). In their absence, almost all reported <i>P</i> values were statistically significant (98%, 95% CI 96% to 99%). Conversely, when any multiplicity corrections were described, 88% (95% CI 82% to 93%) of reported <i>P</i> values were statistically significant. Use of Bayesian methods was scant (2.5%) and rarely (0.7%) articles relied exclusively on Bayesian statistics. Overall, wider appreciation of the need for multiplicity corrections is a welcome evolution, but the rapid growth of reliance on <i>P</i> values and implausibly high rates of reported statistical significance are worrisome.</p></div

Publication by association: how the COVID-19 pandemic has shown relationships between authors and editorial board members in the field of infectious diseases

International audienceDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the rush to scientific and political judgements on the merits of hydroxychloroquine was fuelled by dubious papers which may have been published because the authors were not independent from the practices of the journals in which they appeared. This example leads us to consider a new type of illegitimate publishing entity, ’self-promotion journals’ which could be deployed to serve the instrumentalisation of productivity-based metrics, with a ripple effect on decisions about promotion, tenure and grant funding, but also on the quality of manuscripts that are disseminated to the medical community and form the foundation of evidence-based medicine

Proportion of significant P values and 95% confidence intervals All display items with countable P values by Journal-Year cohorts.

<p>Proportion of significant P values and 95% confidence intervals All display items with countable P values by Journal-Year cohorts.</p