Cited by 167Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyMemory and Neural Mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 24 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Oxytocin enhances observational fear in mice

Open access

Abstract

Empathy is fundamental to human relations, but its neural substrates remain largely unknown. Here we characterize the involvement of oxytocin in the capacity of mice to display emotional state-matching, an empathy-like behavior. When exposed to a familiar conspecific demonstrator in distress, an observer mouse becomes fearful, as indicated by a tendency to freeze and subsequent efforts to escape. Both intranasal oxytocin administration and chemogenetic stimulation of oxytocin neurons render males sensitive to the distress of an unfamiliar mouse. Acute intranasal oxytocin penetrates the brain and enhances cellular activity within the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas chronic administration produces long-term facilitation of observational fear and downregulates oxytocin receptor expression in the amygdala. None of these manipulations affect fear acquired as a result of direct experience with the stressor. Hence, these results implicate oxytocin in observational fear in mice (rather than fear itself) and provide new avenues for examining the neural substrates of empathy.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Oxytocin enhances observational/socially transmitted fear in mice, while leaving directly acquired Pavlovian fear largely unaffected. Acute and chronic intranasal oxytocin, as well as chemogenetic activation of hypothalamic oxytocin neurons, increase freezing in unfamiliar male observers, whereas an oxytocin receptor antagonist reduces it.

Key findings

  • Familiar male observers froze significantly more than unfamiliar male observers (two-tailed t-test: t(25)=2.96, p=0.008), while familiar and unfamiliar females did not differ (t(19)=0.728, p=0.48).
  • Acute intranasal oxytocin (20 μg/kg) elevated CSF oxytocin (t(19)=2.73, p=0.015) and enhanced freezing in unfamiliar males (t(23)=2.49, p=0.020); chronic oxytocin (20 μg/kg, 5 daily doses) also enhanced freezing 10 days after cessation (t(21)=2.64, p=0.016) and downregulated Oxtr in the CeL (t(19)=2.08, p=0.05) but not ACC (p=0.95).
  • Chemogenetic activation of PVN oxytocinergic neurons with rM3D(Gs) enhanced freezing in unfamiliar males (ANOVA: F2,28=3.41, p=0.048), and the oxytocin receptor antagonist L-368,899 dose-dependently reduced freezing in familiar males (ANOVA: F2,35=5.73, p=0.007).
  • Oxytocin manipulations did not affect direct Pavlovian fear acquisition, expression, or extinction, and I125-labeled oxytocin was detected in brain regions including ACC, amygdala, and hypothalamus after intranasal delivery.

Methods

  • C57/B6 mice, 8–12 weeks old, tested as same-sex observer–demonstrator pairs; social fear was measured as observer freezing during demonstrator foot-shock conditioning (0.8 mA, 1.5 s, 15 trials), with a separate socially induced avoidance paradigm for escape behavior.
  • Pharmacological and chemogenetic manipulations included intranasal oxytocin (20 μg/kg acute or 5 daily doses), systemic L-368,899 (5 or 10 mg/kg I.P.), and CNO (3 mg/kg I.P.) in Oxt-IRES-Cre mice with bilateral PVN injections of AAV2-hSyn-DIO-rM3D(Gs)-mCherry.
  • Analyses used two-tailed Student’s t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and Dunnett’s post hoc tests, with significance set at P<0.05; supporting measures included CSF ELISA, I125-oxytocin distribution, qRT-PCR for Oxtr, and c-Fos immunohistochemistry.

Limitations

  • Stated: I125-radiolabeling cannot distinguish intact oxytocin from labeled peptide fragments; ELISA could not extract/quantify oxytocin from brain tissue; the experiments did not disambiguate relatedness from familiarity; and no statistical methods were used to predetermine sample sizes.
  • Evident: the key oxytocin manipulations were conducted primarily in male mice, so sex-specific generalization of the oxytocin effects is not established by the reported experiments.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-017-02279-5

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

21 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Figures

Fig. 1 Unfamiliar male mice exhibit a reduction in socially transmitted fear. a Schematic of the socially transmitted fear paradigm (AU, arbitrary unit; M, measurement; scale bar, 100 ms), and schedule (Acc, acclimation; Cond, demonstrator conditioning). b Unfamiliar male observers (gray, n = 13) exhibited significantly less freezing compared to familiar male observers (black, n = 13) across demonstrator conditioning trials (repeated measure ANOVA: F 1,390 = 6.00, p < 0.0001), and when averaged (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(25) = 2.96, p = 0.008). Familiar (black, n = 10) and unfamiliar (gray, n = 10) female mice did not exhibit significant differences in levels of freezing (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(19) = 0.728, p = 0.48) (ANOVA: F 3,45 = 5.55, p = 0.003; effect of familiarity F 1,45 = 6.06, p = 0.018; effect of sex F 1,45 = 7.83, p = 0.008; familiarity x-sex interaction F 1,45 = 1.76, p = 0.192). The gray box indicates the acclimation period prior to demonstrator conditioning. White lines and gray boxes within bars indicate mean and s.e.m. of freezing counts, respectively, during acclimation. c The relationship between observer freezing counts and demonstrator vocalization durations across conditioning trials in familiar and unfamiliar mice. Average correlations were significantly different (Fisher transformation, two-way Student’s t-test: t(24) = 2.25, p = 0.035). d Socially transmitted fear differed between familiar (black; small: n = 3, large: n = 10) and unfamiliar (gray; small: n = 2, large: n = 11) male mice when the observer was reared within a relatively small litter (small: 2–6 pups; large: 7–12 pups) (ANOVA: F 3,25 = 3.69, p = 0.027; effect of familiarity, F 1,25 = 10.28, p = 0.004; effect of size F 1,25 = 0.001, p = 0.970; familiarity x-size interaction, F 3,25 = 2.16, p = 0.156; two-tailed Student’s t-test: small litters only, t(4) = 4.38, p = 0.035). e Locomotor activity measurements recorded during acclimation, and over the first 5 s (M1) or thereafter (M2-12) demonstrator foot-shock trials were significantly different in unfamiliar observers (two-tailed Student’s t-test: effect of measurement t(25) = 3.70, p = 0.002), and in unfamiliar compared to familiar observers at M2-12 (two-tailed Student’s t-test: effect of familiarity t(25) = 3.96, p = 0.001), indicating less sustained freezing within trials. The dashed line indicates locomotor activity threshold used for freezing counts, as in b. Error bars represent s.e.m. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; NS = not significant
Fig. 1 Unfamiliar male mice exhibit a reduction in socially transmitted fear. a Schematic of the socially transmitted fear paradigm (AU, arbitrary unit; M, measurement; scale bar, 100 ms), and schedule (Acc, acclimation; Cond, demonstrator conditioning). b Unfamiliar male observers (gray, n = 13) exhibited significantly less freezing compared to familiar male observers (black, n = 13) across demonstrator conditioning trials (repeated measure ANOVA: F 1,390 = 6.00, p < 0.0001), and when averaged (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(25) = 2.96, p = 0.008). Familiar (black, n = 10) and unfamiliar (gray, n = 10) female mice did not exhibit significant differences in levels of freezing (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(19) = 0.728, p = 0.48) (ANOVA: F 3,45 = 5.55, p = 0.003; effect of familiarity F 1,45 = 6.06, p = 0.018; effect of sex F 1,45 = 7.83, p = 0.008; familiarity x-sex interaction F 1,45 = 1.76, p = 0.192). The gray box indicates the acclimation period prior to demonstrator conditioning. White lines and gray boxes within bars indicate mean and s.e.m. of freezing counts, respectively, during acclimation. c The relationship between observer freezing counts and demonstrator vocalization durations across conditioning trials in familiar and unfamiliar mice. Average correlations were significantly different (Fisher transformation, two-way Student’s t-test: t(24) = 2.25, p = 0.035). d Socially transmitted fear differed between familiar (black; small: n = 3, large: n = 10) and unfamiliar (gray; small: n = 2, large: n = 11) male mice when the observer was reared within a relatively small litter (small: 2–6 pups; large: 7–12 pups) (ANOVA: F 3,25 = 3.69, p = 0.027; effect of familiarity, F 1,25 = 10.28, p = 0.004; effect of size F 1,25 = 0.001, p = 0.970; familiarity x-size interaction, F 3,25 = 2.16, p = 0.156; two-tailed Student’s t-test: small litters only, t(4) = 4.38, p = 0.035). e Locomotor activity measurements recorded during acclimation, and over the first 5 s (M1) or thereafter (M2-12) demonstrator foot-shock trials were significantly different in unfamiliar observers (two-tailed Student’s t-test: effect of measurement t(25) = 3.70, p = 0.002), and in unfamiliar compared to familiar observers at M2-12 (two-tailed Student’s t-test: effect of familiarity t(25) = 3.96, p = 0.001), indicating less sustained freezing within trials. The dashed line indicates locomotor activity threshold used for freezing counts, as in b. Error bars represent s.e.m. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; NS = not significantCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Familiar male mice exhibit escape behavior in a novel socially induced avoidance paradigm. a Schematic of the socially induced avoidance paradigm, and schedule (Acc, acclimation; Cond, demonstrator conditioning). b On the second conditioning day (Cond (open)), familiar mice (black line, n = 10) but not non-conditioned controls (dashed line, n = 12) escaped the demonstrator-paired context during acclimation and conditioning. The gray box indicates acclimation period prior to demonstrator conditioning. Both familiar (black, n = 10) and unfamiliar (gray, n = 8) observer mice exhibited initial escape behavior during acclimation (familiar vs. control: two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 2.90, p = 0.011; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = 0.021, p = 0.017; unfamiliar vs. control: t(19) = 2.32, p = 0.042; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = −0.0004, p = 0.049), whereas only familiar mice maintained escape during demonstrator conditioning (familiar vs. control: two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 4.09, p = 0.001; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = 0.093, p = 0.001; unfamiliar vs. control: t(19) = 0.14, p = 0.889; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = −0.14, p = 0.981). c Compared to non-conditioned controls (white, n = 12), familiar observers (black, n = 10) exhibited significant escape behavior at post-test (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 2.73, p = 0.017; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = 0.025, p = 0.012), whereas unfamiliar mice (gray, n = 8) did not (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(19) = 1.27, p = 0.229; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = −0.05, p = 0.488). d Familiar observer mice (black, n = 10) exhibited a significant difference in normalized avoidance scores compared to non-conditioned controls (white, n = 12) (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 2.17, p = 0.052; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = 0.023, p = 0.029). Error bars represent s.e.m. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
Fig. 2 Familiar male mice exhibit escape behavior in a novel socially induced avoidance paradigm. a Schematic of the socially induced avoidance paradigm, and schedule (Acc, acclimation; Cond, demonstrator conditioning). b On the second conditioning day (Cond (open)), familiar mice (black line, n = 10) but not non-conditioned controls (dashed line, n = 12) escaped the demonstrator-paired context during acclimation and conditioning. The gray box indicates acclimation period prior to demonstrator conditioning. Both familiar (black, n = 10) and unfamiliar (gray, n = 8) observer mice exhibited initial escape behavior during acclimation (familiar vs. control: two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 2.90, p = 0.011; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = 0.021, p = 0.017; unfamiliar vs. control: t(19) = 2.32, p = 0.042; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = −0.0004, p = 0.049), whereas only familiar mice maintained escape during demonstrator conditioning (familiar vs. control: two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 4.09, p = 0.001; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = 0.093, p = 0.001; unfamiliar vs. control: t(19) = 0.14, p = 0.889; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = −0.14, p = 0.981). c Compared to non-conditioned controls (white, n = 12), familiar observers (black, n = 10) exhibited significant escape behavior at post-test (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 2.73, p = 0.017; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = 0.025, p = 0.012), whereas unfamiliar mice (gray, n = 8) did not (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(19) = 1.27, p = 0.229; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = −0.05, p = 0.488). d Familiar observer mice (black, n = 10) exhibited a significant difference in normalized avoidance scores compared to non-conditioned controls (white, n = 12) (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 2.17, p = 0.052; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = 0.023, p = 0.029). Error bars represent s.e.m. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Oxytocin modulates socially transmitted fear behavior and neural mechanisms. a Schematic of oxytocin drug regimens and times of sample collection for qRT-PCR and immunohistochemistry (IHC; habit, habituation; cond, demonstrator conditioning; OXT, oxytocin; OXTA, oxytocin receptor antagonist). b In behaviorally naïve mice administered acute intranasal oxytocin (20 μg/kg; dark blue, n = 10), concentrations of the neuropeptide in CSF were significantly elevated compared to saline-treated controls (gray, n = 10) (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(19) = 2.73, p = 0.015). c Unfamiliar male observers given acute (20 μg/kg, single dose, 30 min prior; dark blue, n = 12; two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(23) = 2.49, p = 0.020) or chronic (20 μg/kg, 5 daily doses; light blue, n = 11; two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 2.64, p = 0.016) intranasal oxytocin exhibited a significant enhancement of freezing compared to saline-treated controls (gray, n = 12/11, respectively). White lines and gray boxes within bars indicate mean and s.e.m. of freezing counts, respectively, during acclimation. d Immunofluorescent labeling of c-Fos+ and DAPI cells within the anterior cingulate cortex (Cg1/2) and primary motor area (M1) (scale bar, 100 μm). Acute intranasal oxytocin significantly enhanced the percentage of c-Fos+/DAPI cells within the ACC (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(9) = 2.36, p = 0.048) but not M1 (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(9) = 0.96, p = 0.369) (n = 5 mice per group). e Chronic intranasal oxytocin significantly reduced oxytocin receptor (Oxtr) transcript expression in the lateral division of the central nucleus of the amygdala (CeL) (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(19) = 2.08, p = 0.05), but not the ACC (two-tailed Student’s t-test, t(19) = 0.06, p = 0.95), assayed one day after completion of chronic oxytocin treatment. qRT-PCR amplicons of the Gapdh (110 bps) and Oxtr (135 bps) transcripts at expected sizes. f Familiar male observers systemically administered the oxytocin receptor antagonist L-368,899 hydrochloride (OXTA; I.P. single dose, 30 min prior; red, n = 12 per group) showed dose-dependent reductions in socially transmitted fear at 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg, compared to saline-treated controls (ANOVA: F 2,35 = 5.73, p = 0.007). Error bars represent s.e.m. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
Fig. 3 Oxytocin modulates socially transmitted fear behavior and neural mechanisms. a Schematic of oxytocin drug regimens and times of sample collection for qRT-PCR and immunohistochemistry (IHC; habit, habituation; cond, demonstrator conditioning; OXT, oxytocin; OXTA, oxytocin receptor antagonist). b In behaviorally naïve mice administered acute intranasal oxytocin (20 μg/kg; dark blue, n = 10), concentrations of the neuropeptide in CSF were significantly elevated compared to saline-treated controls (gray, n = 10) (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(19) = 2.73, p = 0.015). c Unfamiliar male observers given acute (20 μg/kg, single dose, 30 min prior; dark blue, n = 12; two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(23) = 2.49, p = 0.020) or chronic (20 μg/kg, 5 daily doses; light blue, n = 11; two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 2.64, p = 0.016) intranasal oxytocin exhibited a significant enhancement of freezing compared to saline-treated controls (gray, n = 12/11, respectively). White lines and gray boxes within bars indicate mean and s.e.m. of freezing counts, respectively, during acclimation. d Immunofluorescent labeling of c-Fos+ and DAPI cells within the anterior cingulate cortex (Cg1/2) and primary motor area (M1) (scale bar, 100 μm). Acute intranasal oxytocin significantly enhanced the percentage of c-Fos+/DAPI cells within the ACC (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(9) = 2.36, p = 0.048) but not M1 (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(9) = 0.96, p = 0.369) (n = 5 mice per group). e Chronic intranasal oxytocin significantly reduced oxytocin receptor (Oxtr) transcript expression in the lateral division of the central nucleus of the amygdala (CeL) (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(19) = 2.08, p = 0.05), but not the ACC (two-tailed Student’s t-test, t(19) = 0.06, p = 0.95), assayed one day after completion of chronic oxytocin treatment. qRT-PCR amplicons of the Gapdh (110 bps) and Oxtr (135 bps) transcripts at expected sizes. f Familiar male observers systemically administered the oxytocin receptor antagonist L-368,899 hydrochloride (OXTA; I.P. single dose, 30 min prior; red, n = 12 per group) showed dose-dependent reductions in socially transmitted fear at 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg, compared to saline-treated controls (ANOVA: F 2,35 = 5.73, p = 0.007). Error bars represent s.e.m. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Chemogenetic activation of oxytocinergic neurons enhances socially transmitted fear in unfamiliar male mice. a Schematic of construct used for viral incorporation of the rM3D(Gs) receptor before and after Cre-dependent recombination. b Schematic of Cre recombinase transgene insertion at the mouse oxytocin gene. c Representative c-fos and mCherry immunoreactivity within the paraventricular nuclei (PVN; dashed outline) expressing rM3D(Gs) receptors (scale bar, 100 μm) and magnified view of co-labeled c-Fos+/mCherry-expressing neurons. d Quantification indicating significantly elevated percentage of c-Fos+/DAPI cells within the PVN of CNO-treated mice (3 mg/kg, I.P.; green, n = 4 mice) compared to saline-treated controls (gray, n = 4 mice) expressing the rM3D(Gs) DREADD (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(7) = 2.65, p = 0.050). e Administration of CNO (3 mg/kg, I.P.) 30 min prior to demonstrator conditioning enhanced freezing in unfamiliar male mice expressing rM3D(Gs) (green, n = 10) compared to saline-treated controls with rM3D(Gs) (gray, n = 9) and CNO-treated controls without rM3D(Gs) (white, n = 10) when averaged over conditioning trials (ANOVA: F 2,28 = 3.41, p = 0.048). White lines and gray boxes within bars indicate mean and s.e.m. of freezing counts, respectively, during acclimation. Black error bars represent s.e.m. *p < 0.05
Fig. 4 Chemogenetic activation of oxytocinergic neurons enhances socially transmitted fear in unfamiliar male mice. a Schematic of construct used for viral incorporation of the rM3D(Gs) receptor before and after Cre-dependent recombination. b Schematic of Cre recombinase transgene insertion at the mouse oxytocin gene. c Representative c-fos and mCherry immunoreactivity within the paraventricular nuclei (PVN; dashed outline) expressing rM3D(Gs) receptors (scale bar, 100 μm) and magnified view of co-labeled c-Fos+/mCherry-expressing neurons. d Quantification indicating significantly elevated percentage of c-Fos+/DAPI cells within the PVN of CNO-treated mice (3 mg/kg, I.P.; green, n = 4 mice) compared to saline-treated controls (gray, n = 4 mice) expressing the rM3D(Gs) DREADD (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(7) = 2.65, p = 0.050). e Administration of CNO (3 mg/kg, I.P.) 30 min prior to demonstrator conditioning enhanced freezing in unfamiliar male mice expressing rM3D(Gs) (green, n = 10) compared to saline-treated controls with rM3D(Gs) (gray, n = 9) and CNO-treated controls without rM3D(Gs) (white, n = 10) when averaged over conditioning trials (ANOVA: F 2,28 = 3.41, p = 0.048). White lines and gray boxes within bars indicate mean and s.e.m. of freezing counts, respectively, during acclimation. Black error bars represent s.e.m. *p < 0.05CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

31 Own result · 19 Own method · 13 Own interpretation · 10 Not checked yet · 1 Partly supported · 1 Mixed support · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 20 references — free account
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 23
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 17
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
38 of 38
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    L-368,899 hydrochloride specifically antagonizes oxytocin receptors in vivo at the doses used.

    “we systemically administered the non-peptidergic oxytocin receptor antagonist (OXTA) l-368,899 hydrochloride to familiar male mice.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The intranasal oxytocin doses and timing used in this study are sufficient to activate central oxytocin receptors that mediate social fear.

    “Acute intranasal oxytocin penetrates the brain and enhances cellular activity within the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas chronic administration produces long-term facilitation of observational fear and downregulates oxytocin receptor expression in the amygdala.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Vocalizations recorded during conditioning were elicited from demonstrators.

    “Vocalizations were presumed to be elicited from demonstrators based on coincidence with foot-shock onset/offset and previously identified characteristics of distress vocalizations elicited by foot-shock7.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The data were normally distributed.

    “Data were normally distributed; therefore, parametric tests were used to compare groups.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The oxytocin receptor antagonist L-368,899 hydrochloride is selective for oxytocin receptors.

    “For the systemic oxytocin receptor antagonist (OXTA), mice were briefly anesthetized with isoflurane and quickly administered the selective OXTA L-368,899 hydrochloride (5 or 10 mg/kg, I.P.).”
5 of 5

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

8 of 8

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upt(25) = 2.96reported p = .008 · recomputed p = .007

    “t(25) = 2.96, p = .008”

  • Doesn’t add upt(24) = 2.25reported p = .035 · recomputed p = .034

    “t(24) = 2.25, p = .035”

  • Doesn’t add upt(4) = 4.38reported p = .035 · recomputed p = .012

    “t(4) = 4.38, p = .035”

  • Doesn’t add upt(19) = 2.73reported p = .015 · recomputed p = .013

    “t(19) = 2.73, p = .015”

  • Doesn’t add upt(21) = 2.64reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .015

    “t(21) = 2.64, p = .016”

  • Doesn’t add upt(9) = 2.36reported p = .048 · recomputed p = .043

    “t(9) = 2.36, p = .048”

  • Doesn’t add upt(9) = 0.96reported p = .369 · recomputed p = .362

    “t(9) = 0.96, p = .369”

  • Doesn’t add upt(7) = 2.65reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .033

    “t(7) = 2.65, p = .050”

  • Not confirmedt(25) = 3.7reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .001

    “t(25) = 3.70, p = .002”

  • Consistentt(19) = 0.728reported p = .48 · recomputed p = .475

    “t(19) = 0.728, p = .48”

  • Consistentt(25) = 3.96reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(25) = 3.96, p = .001”

  • Consistentt(21) = 2.9reported p = .011 · recomputed p = .009

    “t(21) = 2.90, p = .011”

    The paper states a correction for multiple tests

  • Consistentt(19) = 2.32reported p = .042 · recomputed p = .032

    “t(19) = 2.32, p = .042”

    The paper states a correction for multiple tests

  • Consistentt(21) = 4.09reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(21) = 4.09, p = .001”

  • Consistentt(19) = 0.14reported p = .889 · recomputed p = .890

    “t(19) = 0.14, p = .889”

  • Consistentt(21) = 2.73reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .013

    “t(21) = 2.73, p = .017”

    The paper states a correction for multiple tests

  • Consistentt(19) = 1.27reported p = .229 · recomputed p = .219

    “t(19) = 1.27, p = .229”

    The paper states a correction for multiple tests

  • Consistentt(21) = 2.17reported p = .052 · recomputed p = .042

    “t(21) = 2.17, p = .052”

    The paper states a correction for multiple tests

  • Consistentt(23) = 2.49reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .020

    “t(23) = 2.49, p = .020”

  • Consistentt(19) = 2.08reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .051

    “t(19) = 2.08, p = .05”

  • Consistentt(19) = 0.06reported p = .95 · recomputed p = .953

    “t(19) = 0.06, p = .95”

21 of 21

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Show all 83 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 167

Metadata

Authors
Pisansky, M. T., Hanson, L. R., Gottesman, I. I., & Gewirtz, J. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • HealthPartners (US)
Corresponding author
Gewirtz, Jonathan C.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2017-12-13
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
2102-2102
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2773566393
Cited by
167
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 1
FWCI
18.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of Minnesota
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
oxytocin, empathy, anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, oxytocin receptor, chemogenetic stimulation, intranasal oxytocin, freezing response, escape behavior
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Amygdala, Animals, Brain, Escape Reaction, Fear, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Oxytocin, Reflex, Startle, Receptors, Oxytocin

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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