Cited by 962Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intranasal oxytocin improves emotion recognition for youth with autism spectrum disorders.

Abstract

Background A diagnostic hallmark of autism spectrum disorders is a qualitative impairment in social communication and interaction. Deficits in the ability to recognize the emotions of others are believed to contribute to this. There is currently no effective treatment for these problems.Methods In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover design, we administered oxytocin nasal spray (18 or 24 IU) or a placebo to 16 male youth aged 12 to 19 who were diagnosed with Autistic or Asperger's Disorder. Participants then completed the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Task, a widely used and reliable test of emotion recognition.Results In comparison with placebo, oxytocin administration improved performance on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Task. This effect was also shown when analysis was restricted to the younger participants aged 12 to 15 who received the lower dose.Conclusions This study provides the first evidence that oxytocin nasal spray improves emotion recognition in young people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders. Findings suggest the potential of earlier intervention and further evaluation of oxytocin nasal spray as a treatment to improve social communication and interaction in young people with autism spectrum disorders.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.09.020

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 962

Metadata

Authors
Guastella, A. J., Einfeld, S. L., Gray, K. M., Rinehart, N. J., Tonge, B. J., Lambert, T. J., & Hickie, I. B.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Guastella, Adam J.
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-04
Volume
67
Issue
7
Pages
692-694
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2051587828
Cited by
962
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 95 · 2014: 99 · 2013: 85 · 2012: 74
FWCI
67.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Brain & Mind Research Institute and National Health and Medical Research Council Project (570897)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Keywords
intranasal oxytocin, autism spectrum disorder, Asperger syndrome, emotion recognition, social communication, Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, adolescents, social cognition, early intervention
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Administration, Topical, Adolescent, Affect, Autistic Disorder, Child, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Oxytocin, Cross-Over Studies, Recognition, Psychology, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review