Dataset Information

Tri-Phasic Model ofOxytocin (TRIO): A systematic conceptual review of oxytocin-related ERP research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The neuropeptide oxytocin (OT) has been shown to play a role in variety of cognitive and social processes and different hypotheses have been put forth to explain OT's effects on brain and behavior in humans. However, these previous explanatory accounts do not provide information about OT-related temporal modulation in the brain.

Objectives

This paper systematically reviewed intranasal OT administration studies employing event-related potentials (ERPs) and synthesized the existing evidence into a novel conceptual framework.

Methods

Empirical studies, published until February 2020 and cited in major databases (EBSCOhost, PubMed, and Web of Science), were examined in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. To be included, studies had to: (i) employ intranasal administration of OT, as the chemical modulator; (ii) measure ERPs; (iii) be peer-reviewed journal articles; (iv) be written in English; and (v) examine human participants.

Results

The search criteria yielded 17 empirical studies. The systematic review resulted in conceptualization of the Tri-Phasic Model ofOxytocin (TRIO), which builds on three processing stages: (i) perception, (ii) selection, and (iii) evaluation. While OT increases attention irrespective of stimuli characteristics in the perception stage, in the selection and evaluation stages, OT acts as a filter to guide attention selectively towards social over non-social stimuli and modulates prosociality/approach motivation associated with social stimuli.

Conclusions

TRIO offers an empirically-derived conceptual framework that can guide the study of OT-related modulation on attentional processes, starting very early in the processing stream. This novel account furthers theoretical understanding and informs empirical investigation into OT modulation on the brain.

SUBMITTER: Pehlivanoglu D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7556712 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAddressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally.However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity.MethodsWe searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsThirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.ConclusionsThere are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Prognostic research has many important purposes, including (i) describing the natural history and clinical course of health conditions, (ii) investigating variables associated with health outcomes of interest, (iii) estimating an individual's probability of developing different outcomes, (iv) investigating the clinical application of prediction models, and (v) investigating determinants of recovery that can inform the development of interventions to improve patient outcomes. But much prognostic research has been poorly conducted and interpreted, indicating that a number of conceptual areas are often misunderstood. Recent initiatives to improve this include the Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) and the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Statement. In this paper, we aim to show how different categories of prognostic research relate to each other, to differentiate exploratory and confirmatory studies, discuss moderators and mediators, and to show how important it is to understand study designs and the differences between prediction and causation. MAIN TEXT:We propose that there are four main objectives of prognostic studies - description, association, prediction and causation. By causation, we mean the effect of prediction and decision rules on outcomes as determined by intervention studies and the investigation of whether a prognostic factor is a determinant of outcome (on the causal pathway). These either fall under the umbrella of exploratory (description, association, and prediction model development) or confirmatory (prediction model external validation and investigation of causation). Including considerations of causation within a prognostic framework provides a more comprehensive roadmap of how different types of studies conceptually relate to each other, and better clarity about appropriate model performance measures and the inferences that can be drawn from different types of prognostic studies. We also propose definitions of 'candidate prognostic factors', 'prognostic factors', 'prognostic determinants (causal)' and 'prognostic markers (non-causal)'. Furthermore, we address common conceptual misunderstandings related to study design, analysis, and interpretation of multivariable models from the perspectives of association, prediction and causation. CONCLUSION:This paper uses a framework to clarify some concepts in prognostic research that remain poorly understood and implemented, to stimulate discussion about how prognostic studies can be strengthened and appropriately interpreted.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults present a variety of oral diseases and conditions, in addition to co-morbidities and limited access to dental care, which significantly impact their oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). There are many instruments published to measure OHRQoL. However, it is challenging for clinicians and researchers to choose the best instrument for a given purpose.PurposeTo identify OHRQoL instruments available for older adults and summarize the evidence on the conceptual and measurement model, psychometric properties, interpretability, and administration issues of OHRQoL instruments available for older adults through a systematic review.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL up to February 2023. Articles reporting information on the concept model measurement, psychometric properties, and administration issues of an instrument measuring OHRQoL in older adults were included. Two researchers independently evaluated each instrument using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. The overall score and seven attribute-specific scores were calculated (range 0-100): Conceptual and measurement model, Reliability, Validity, Responsiveness, Interpretability, Burden, and Alternative forms.ResultsWe identified 14 instruments evaluated in 97 articles. The overall score varied between 73.7 and 8.9, with only six questionnaires over the threshold score 50.0. EORTC QLQ OH-15 (cancer-specific questionnaire) achieved the highest score (73.7), followed by OHIP (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (66.9), GOHAI (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (65.5), and OHIDL (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (65.2). Overall, the Conceptual and measurement model and Validity showed the best performance, while Responsiveness and Interpretability showed the worst. Insufficient information was presented for an overall evaluation of DSQ and OHAI.ConclusionThe evidence supports using EORTC QLQ-OH15 as a specific instrument to assess OHRQoL in cancer patients and the OHIP-49, GOHAI, or OHIDL as generic instruments to assess OHRQoL either for cross-sectional or longitudinal studies in older adults.