CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Distinct oxytocin effects on belief updating in response to desirable and undesirable feedback

Open access
Ma, Yina, Li, Shiyi, Wang, Chenbo, Liu, Yi, Li, Wenxin, Yan, Xinyuan, Chen, Qiang, Han, Shihui·2016·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1604285113PMC PMC4995949
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Significance: People tend to incorporate desirable feedback into their beliefs but discount undesirable ones. Such optimistic updating has evolved as an advantageous mechanism for social adaptation and physical/mental health. Here, in three independent studies, we show that intranasally administered oxytocin (OT), an evolutionary ancient neuropeptide pivotal to social adaptation, augments optimistic belief updating by increasing updates and learning of desirable feedback but impairing updates of undesirable feedback. Moreover, the OT-impaired updating of undesirable feedback is more salient in individuals with high, rather than with low, depression or anxiety traits. OT also increases second-order confidence judgment after desirable feedback. These findings reveal a molecular substrate underlying the formation of optimistic beliefs about the future.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In three double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (n = 320 recruited; 308 analyzed), intranasal oxytocin increased optimistic belief updating by enhancing updates and learning from desirable feedback while impairing updates from undesirable feedback. The effect on undesirable feedback was stronger in individuals with higher depression or anxiety traits, and oxytocin also increased confidence after desirable feedback, which mediated the optimistic updating effect.

Key findings

  • IN-OT produced greater optimistic updating than placebo across studies: study 1, t(96) = 2.72, P = 0.008; study 2, t(93) = 2.08, P = 0.041; study 3, t(112) = 2.76, P = 0.007. Mean belief update was negative overall (study 1: −1.76, P = 0.004; study 2: −1.37, P = 0.006).
  • Treatment × Feedback interactions showed OT enhanced updating upon desirable feedback but decreased updating upon undesirable feedback: study 1, F(1,97) = 8.40, P = 0.005; study 2, F(1,93) = 7.28, P = 0.008; study 3, F(1,112) = 6.047, P = 0.015.
  • Collapsed across studies 1–3, OT selectively enhanced learning rate for desirable estimation errors, F(1,306) = 11.779, P = 0.001, but not undesirable ones (P > 0.2); Treatment × Feedback interaction on learning rate, F(1,306) = 13.687, P < 0.001.
  • Treatment × Trait predicted undesirable-feedback updating (BDI: B = −1.79, P = 0.020; DAS: B = −2.25, P = 0.004; TA: B = −2.84, P < 0.001), not desirable-feedback updating; simple slopes were significant in high trait scorers but not low scorers (ps > 0.5). In study 3, OT increased confidence after desirable feedback, F(1,112) = 13.277, P < 0.001, but not undesirable feedback (P > 0.1); mediation by confidence updating upon desirable feedback was significant (Sobel t = 2.36, P = 0.018; bootstrap 95% CI 0.58–4.32).

Methods

  • Three independent randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled between-subjects studies; 320 male Chinese college students were recruited and 308 analyzed (study 1: 99; study 2: 95; study 3: 114). Participants received a single intranasal dose of 24 IU OT or placebo and completed the task 40 min later.
  • The belief-updating task asked participants to estimate their likelihood (0–99%) of experiencing 40 adverse life events before and after receiving feedback about the probability of each event occurring to an average person in a similar environment; study 3 additionally measured confidence in estimates and acceptance of feedback.
  • Analyses included t tests, ANOVAs with Treatment and Feedback factors, moderation and simple slope analyses for depression/anxiety traits (BDI, DAS, Trait Anxiety in studies 2 and 3), and mediation/bootstrap analyses for confidence and feedback acceptance.

Limitations

  • Stated: the study recruited only healthy participants with small variation in trait scales, and the authors call for future research in samples with larger trait variation or clinical populations. The authors also note that excessive optimism and ignoring undesirable information can be maladaptive, and that reducing undesirable-feedback updating could be hazardous for well-adapted individuals.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was restricted to male Chinese college students, limiting generalizability to other sexes, ages, and cultural groups.
  • Evident from the text: all participants were healthy and free of neurological or psychiatric diagnoses, so the clinical implications for depression remain speculative and require testing in clinical samples.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1604285113

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 51 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Results

    The OT effect on optimistic updating remained significant after controlling for memory error of feedback and initial estimates (study 1: F(1,86) = 6.65, P = 0.012; study 2: F(1,87) = 5.04, P = 0.027; study 3: F(1,110) = 9.20, P = 0.003).

    “The OT effect on optimistic updating remained significant after controlling for memory error of feedback and initial estimates [study 1: F(1,86) = 6.65, P = 0.012; study 2: F(1,87) = 5.04, P = 0.027 study 3: F(1,110) = 9.20, P = 0.003].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Under PL, there was a significant correlation between trait scores and BUUndes, with individuals scoring high (vs. low) in each trait measure updating their estimates upon undesirable feedback to a greater degree (BDI: B = 1.957, t(193) = 3.395, P = 0.001; DAS: B = 1.637, t(193) = 3.011, P = 0.003; TA: B = 3.053, t(193) = 5.297, P < 0.001).

    “Under PL, there was a significant correlation between trait scores and BUUndes because individuals who scored high (vs. low) in each trait measure updated their estimates upon undesirable feedback to a greater degree (BDI: B = 1.957, t(193) = 3.395, P = 0.001; DAS: B = 1.637, t(193) = 3.011, P = 0.003; TA: B = 3.053, t(193) = 5.297, P < 0.001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    There was a significant main effect of Feedback on learning rate, with participants learning to a greater degree from estimation errors in desirable than in undesirable trials (F(1,306) = 246.482, P < 0.001).

    “The Treatment × Feedback ANOVA of collapsed data from studies 1–3 revealed a significant main effect of Feedback as participants learned to a greater degree from estimation errors in the desirable (than undesirable) trials [F(1,306) = 246.482, P < 0.001].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    There was a significant Treatment × Feedback interaction on belief updating (study 1: F(1,97) = 8.40, P = 0.005; study 2: F(1,93) = 7.28, P = 0.008; study 3: F(1,112) = 6.047, P = 0.015).

    “Moreover, there was a significant Treatment × Feedback interaction [study 1: F(1,97) = 8.40, P = 0.005, Fig. 1A; study 2: F(1,93) = 7.28, P = 0.008, Fig. 1B]”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “The Treatment × Feedback interactive effect on belief updating was replicated in study 3 [F(1, 112) = 6.047, P = 0.015; SI Appendix, Table S1 and Fig. S2].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    A reliable OT effect on optimistic updates remained after controlling for self-reports of event characteristics (study 2: F(1,88) = 10.74, P = 0.002; study 3: F(1,107) = 11.15, P = 0.001).

    “We found a reliable OT effect on optimistic updates after controlling for self-reports of event characteristics [study 2: F(1,88) = 10.74, P = 0.002; study 3: F(1,107) = 11.15, P = 0.001].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 30
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 24
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    There was a significant main effect of Feedback, with greater updating upon desirable compared with undesirable feedback (study 1: F(1,97) = 33.27, P < 0.001; study 2: F(1,93) = 34.51, P < 0.001).

    “The analyses of variance (ANOVA) with Treatment as a between-subjects factor and Feedback as a within-subject factor revealed a significant main effect of Feedback [study 1: F(1,97) = 33.27, P < 0.001; study 2: F(1,93) = 34.51, P < 0.001, SI Appendix, Table S1], suggesting greater updating upon desirable compared with undesirable feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Relative to PL, IN-OT enhanced the learning rate of desirable estimation errors (F(1,306) = 11.779, P = 0.001) but not of undesirable ones (P > 0.2).

    “Moreover, relative to PL, IN-OT enhanced the learning rate of desirable estimation errors [F(1,306) = 11.779, P = 0.001], but not of undesirable ones (P > 0.2; Fig. 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The interaction between Treatment and Trait was predictive of BUUndes (BDI: B = −1.79, t(194) = −2.34, P = 0.020; DAS: B = −2.25, t(193) = −2.951, P = 0.004; TA: B = −2.84, t(194) = −3.82, P < 0.001) but not of BUDes.

    “These analyses showed that the interaction between Treatment and Trait was predictive of BUUndes [BDI: B = −1.79, t(194) = −2.34, P = 0.020, Fig. 2A; DAS: B = −2.25, t(193) = −2.951, P = 0.004, Fig. 2B; TA: B = −2.84, t(194) = −3.82, P < 0.001; Fig. 2C and SI Appendix, Tables S9–S11]; but not BUDes (SI Appendix, Fig. S5 and Tables S9–S11)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Mean belief update was significantly smaller than 0 in study 1 (BU = −1.76, t(1,97) = 2.98, P = 0.004) and study 2 (BU = −1.37, t(1,94) = 2.80, P = 0.006), indicating reliable optimistic updating across OT and PL groups.

    “A one-sample test revealed that the mean BU was significantly smaller than 0 [study 1: BU = −1.76, t(1,97) = 2.98, P = 0.004; study 2: BU = −1.37, t(1,94) = 2.80, P = 0.006], indicating reliable optimistic updating across OT and PL groups and replicating previous findings (21, 22).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [21] Eil D, Rao JM. The good news-bad news effect: Asymmetric processing of objective information about yourself. Am Econ J Microecon. 2011;3(2):114–138. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [22] Choe HK, et al. Oxytocin mediates entrainment of sensory stimuli to social cues of opposing valence. Neuron. 2015;87(1):152–163. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.06.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Optimistic belief updating was greater in the IN-OT group than in the PL group in study 1 (t(96) = 2.72, P = 0.008), study 2 (t(93) = 2.08, P = 0.041), and study 3 (t(112) = 2.76, P = 0.007).

    “More importantly, an independent-samples t test showed that optimistic updating was greater in IN-OT (vs. PL) group [study 1: t (96) = 2.72, P = 0.008; study 2: t(93) = 2.08, P = 0.041; SI Appendix, Table S1], and this result was also replicated in study 3 [t(112) = 2.76, P = 0.007, SI Appendix, Table S1 and Fig. S2], indicating that OT shifted participants’ belief updating to be more optimistic.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    IN-OT (vs. PL) enhanced updating upon desirable feedback (study 1: F(1,97) = 6.40, P = 0.013; study 2: F(1,93) = 4.57, P = 0.035) and decreased updating upon undesirable feedback (study 1: F(1,97) = 4.13, P = 0.045; study 2: F(1,93) = 5.56, P = 0.020).

    “because IN-OT (vs. PL) enhanced updating upon desirable feedback [study 1: F(1,97) = 6.40, P = 0.013; study 2: F(1,93) = 4.57, P = 0.035] but decreased updating upon undesirable feedback [study 1: F(1,97) = 4.13, P = 0.045; study 2: F(1,93) = 5.56, P = 0.020].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The OT effects on BUUndes were significant in individuals who scored high in each trait measurement (BDI: B = −3.910, t(193) = −3.603, P < 0.001; DAS: B = −4.314, t(192) = −3.988, P < 0.001; TA: B = −4.996, t(193) = −4.762, P < 0.001) but not in those who scored low (ps > 0.5).

    “Simple slope analyses revealed that the OT effects on BUUndes were significant in individuals who scored high in each trait measurement [BDI: B = −3.910, t(193) = −3.603, P < 0.001; DAS: B = −4.314, t(192) = −3.988, P < 0.001; TA: B = −4.996, t(193) = −4.762, P < 0.001] but not in those who scored low (ps > 0.5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    There was a significant main effect of Feedback on confidence updates, with participants showing increased confidence in their estimates after receiving desirable compared with undesirable feedback (F(1,112) = 17.966, P < 0.001).

    “There was a significant main effect of Feedback [F(1,112) = 17.966, P < 0.001] as participants demonstrated increased confidence in their estimates after receiving desirable compared with undesirable feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Under OT, participants demonstrated increased confidence in their estimates after receiving desirable feedback (F(1,56) = 28.099, P < 0.001) but not undesirable feedback (P > 0.1).

    “Under OT, participants demonstrated increased confidence in their estimates after receiving desirable feedback [F(1,56) = 28.099, P < 0.001] but not undesirable feedback (P > 0.1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The OT effect on the optimistic bias in belief updating was mediated by its effect on confidence updating upon desirable feedback (Sobel test: t = 2.36, P = 0.018), with CUDes acting as a full mediator.

    “The mediation analysis confirmed that the OT effect on OB was mediated by its effect on confidence updating upon desirable feedback (Sobel test: t = 2.36, P = 0.018; SI Appendix, Fig. 4C and Tables S12–S15).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The optimistic bias in belief updating (OB) was significantly correlated only with confidence updates upon desirable feedback (r = 0.328, P < 0.001), with no reliable correlations with CUUndes or with acceptance of desirable or undesirable feedback.

    “We found that OB was significantly correlated only with CUDes (r = 0.328, P < 0.001). There was no evidence for reliable correlations between OB and CUUndes (r = 0.110, P = 0.245) or between OB and acceptance of desirable (r = −0.026, P = 0.780) or undesirable feedback (r = −0.013, P = 0.887).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    There was a significant Treatment × Feedback interaction on confidence updates (F(1,112) = 4.535, P = 0.035): IN-OT (relative to PL) increased participants' confidence in their estimates after desirable feedback (F(1,112) = 13.277, P < 0.001) but not after undesirable feedback (P > 0.1).

    “Moreover, there was a significant Treatment × Feedback interaction on CU [F(1,112) = 4.535, P = 0.035; Fig. 4B]. IN-OT (relative to PL) increased participants’ confidence in their estimates after they had received desirable [F(1,112) = 13.277, P < 0.001] but not undesirable feedback (P > 0.1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    There was a significant Treatment × Feedback interaction on feedback acceptance (F(1,112) = 4.697, P = 0.032): IN-OT (relative to PL) increased acceptance of desirable feedback (F(1,112) = 4.320, P = 0.040) but did not influence acceptance of undesirable feedback (P > 0.8).

    “However, there was a significant Treatment × Feedback interaction on feedback acceptance [F(1,112) = 4.697, P = 0.032; Fig. 4A], because IN-OT (relative to PL) increased participants’ acceptance of desirable feedback [F(1,112) = 4.320, P = 0.040] but failed to influence the acceptance of undesirable feedback (P > 0.8).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    IN-OT (vs. PL) did not influence estimation times and memory of feedback.

    “Our results indicated that IN-OT (vs. PL) did not influence estimation times and memory of feedback”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    We found a significant Treatment × Trait interaction on undesirable but not desirable belief updating.

    “Interestingly, we found a significant Treatment × Trait interaction on undesirable but not desirable belief updating.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § Discussion

    Well-adapted individuals already show strong discounting of undesirable feedback under PL.

    “Given that well-adapted individuals already show strong discounting of undesirable feedback under PL”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § Discussion

    IN-OT increased optimistic updating through both facilitation of updating upon desirable feedback and impairment of updating upon undesirable feedback.

    “However, IN-OT increased optimistic updating through both facilitation of updating upon desirable feedback and impairment of updating upon undesirable feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    Neither participants' memory performance nor reaction times during first and second estimation differed significantly between the OT and PL groups.

    “Moreover, neither participants’ memory performance nor reaction times during first and second estimation differed significantly between OT and PL groups (SI Appendix, Tables S19 and S20), suggesting that the IN-OT effects on belief updating cannot be attributed to OT-induced changes in cognitive abilities (e.g., reaction times, memory performance on feedback).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    People update desirable (better than expected) news into their beliefs but discount or ignore undesirable (worse than expected) news.

    “Humans form and update their beliefs in an optimistic manner, i.e., people update desirable (better than expected) news into their beliefs but discount or ignore undesirable (worse than expected) news (2, 19, 21).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] Sharot T. The optimism bias. Curr Biol. 2011;21(23):R941–R945. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19] Sharot T, Korn CW, Dolan RJ. How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nat Neurosci. 2011;14(11):1475–1479. doi: 10.1038/nn.2949. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [21] Eil D, Rao JM. The good news-bad news effect: Asymmetric processing of objective information about yourself. Am Econ J Microecon. 2011;3(2):114–138. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    A Confirmatory Factor Analysis confirmed the discriminant validity between the BDI, DAS and TA scales in the present sample.

    “A Confirmatory Factor Analysis further confirmed the discriminant validity between the scales in the present sample (SI Appendix, Table S8).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    The social adaptation model posits that a fundamental function of OT is to promote adaptation to the social environment by modifying cognitive processes and emotional responses and adjusting behaviors.

    “The social adaptation model (5) posits that a fundamental function of OT is to promote adaptation to the social environment, by modifying cognitive processes and emotional responses and adjusting behaviors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Ma Y, Shamay-Tsoory S, Han S, Zink CF. Oxytocin and social adaptation: Insights from neuroimaging studies of healthy and clinical populations. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016;20(2):133–145. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Abstract

    The study used a double-blind, placebo-controlled between-subjects design.

    “Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled between-subjects design, we show that intranasally administered OT (IN-OT) augments optimistic belief updating by facilitating updates of desirable feedback but impairing updates of undesirable feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Optimistic updating serves as an advantageous mechanism for individuals' social adaptation.

    “There has been evidence that optimistic updating serves as an advantageous mechanism for individuals’ social adaptation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [1] McKay RT, Dennett DC. The evolution of misbelief. Behav Brain Sci. 2009;32(6):493–510, discussion 510–561. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X09990975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] Taylor SE, Kemeny ME, Reed GM, Bower JE, Gruenewald TL. Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):99–109. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [27] Taylor SE, Broffman JI. Psychosocial resources: Functions, origins, and links to mental and physical health. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2011;44:1–57. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [28] Carver CS, Scheier MF. Dispositional optimism. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014;18(6):293–299. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Oxytocin is an evolutionarily ancient neuropeptide implicated in sociality and well-being.

    “The hypothalamic peptide oxytocin (OT) is an evolutionarily ancient neuropeptide implicated in sociality and well-being (3, 4)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] Carter CS. Oxytocin pathways and the evolution of human behavior. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65:17–39. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Ishak WW, Kahloon M, Fakhry H. Oxytocin role in enhancing well-being: A literature review. J Affect Disord. 2011;130(1-2):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2010.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    The OT and PL groups did not differ in age, trait optimism, mood, anxiety, depression-related cognitive distortions or symptoms, or self-reports of event characteristics.

    “OT and PL groups did not differ in age, trait optimism, mood, anxiety, depression-related cognitive distortions or symptoms, self-reports of event characteristics (SI Appendix, Tables S2 and S16–S18).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Accumulating evidence has shown stronger effects of OT in individuals with high trait anxiety, high autistic traits, impaired emotion regulation, low emotional sensitivity, or high attachment avoidance.

    “Accumulating evidence has shown stronger effects of OT in individuals with high trait anxiety (34), high autistic traits (9), impaired emotion regulation (35), low emotional sensitivity (36), or high attachment avoidance (50).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [34] Alvares GA, Chen NTM, Balleine BW, Hickie IB, Guastella AJ. Oxytocin selectively moderates negative cognitive appraisals in high trait anxious males. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2012;37(12):2022–2031. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.04.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] Bartz JA, et al. Oxytocin selectively improves empathic accuracy. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(10):1426–1428. doi: 10.1177/0956797610383439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [35] Quirin M, Kuhl J, Düsing R. Oxytocin buffers cortisol responses to stress in individuals with impaired emotion regulation abilities. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2011;36(6):898–904. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    The uncertainty in prior knowledge relative to that of new data determines how posterior beliefs are formed.

    “It has been proposed that the uncertainty in prior knowledge relative to that of new data determines how posterior beliefs are formed (47).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [47] Vilares I, Howard JD, Fernandes HL, Gottfried JA, Kording KP. Differential representations of prior and likelihood uncertainty in the human brain. Curr Biol. 2012;22(18):1641–1648. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    The more ambiguous and open to interpretation information is, the stronger the optimistic updating appears to be.

    “The more ambiguous and open to interpretation information is, the stronger the optimistic updating appears to be (41).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [41] Sharot T, Garrett N. Forming beliefs: Why valence matters. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016;20(1):25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    IN-OT might increase individuals' trust in information about others (i.e., an average person), thus adjusting their belief during the second estimation with more confidence, especially in the desirable condition.

    “IN-OT might increase individuals’ trust in information about others (i.e., an average person), thus adjusting their belief during the second estimation with more confidence, especially in the desirable condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    The social adaption model of OT function proposed stronger OT effect on social processes in less socially adapted individuals.

    “The social adaption model of OT function proposed stronger OT effect on social processes in less socially adapted individuals (5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Ma Y, Shamay-Tsoory S, Han S, Zink CF. Oxytocin and social adaptation: Insights from neuroimaging studies of healthy and clinical populations. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016;20(2):133–145. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Some previous studies have shown stronger OT effects in more socially adapted individuals such as those with low attachment anxiety or low social anxiety.

    “However, some previous studies have shown stronger OT effects in more socially adapted individuals such as those with low attachment anxiety (53) or low social anxiety (54).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [53] Bartz JA, et al. Effects of oxytocin on recollections of maternal care and closeness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(50):21371–21375. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1012669107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [54] Radke S, Roelofs K, de Bruijn ERA. Acting on anger: Social anxiety modulates approach-avoidance tendencies after oxytocin administration. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(8):1573–1578. doi: 10.1177/0956797612472682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The finding that IN-OT normalized the hyperupdates upon undesirable feedback in less-adapted individuals has important clinical implications for OT treatment in depression.

    “The finding that IN-OT normalized the hyperupdates upon undesirable feedback in less-adapted individuals has important clinical implications for OT treatment in depression”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    A crucial factor determining these inconsistent results may lie in the social focus of trait measures.

    “It has been suggested that a crucial factor determining these inconsistent results may lie in the social focus of trait measures (54).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [54] Radke S, Roelofs K, de Bruijn ERA. Acting on anger: Social anxiety modulates approach-avoidance tendencies after oxytocin administration. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(8):1573–1578. doi: 10.1177/0956797612472682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Optimistic updating is adaptive for mental health.

    “Whereas optimistic updating is adaptive for mental health”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [1] McKay RT, Dennett DC. The evolution of misbelief. Behav Brain Sci. 2009;32(6):493–510, discussion 510–561. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X09990975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] Sharot T. The optimism bias. Curr Biol. 2011;21(23):R941–R945. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [55] Varki A. Human uniqueness and the denial of death. Nature. 2009;460(7256):684. doi: 10.1038/460684c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Discussion

    The current study recruited only healthy participants with a small variation in each trait scale.

    “However, the current study recruited only healthy participants with a small variation in each trait scale (SI Appendix, Table S8).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The finding that OT did not reduce belief updating of undesirable feedback in well-adapted individuals may also reflect an adaptive mechanism for this cohort.

    “Thus, the finding that OT did not reduce belief updating of undesirable feedback in well-adapted individuals may also reflect an adaptive mechanism for this cohort.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    IN-OT facilitated responses to positive social cues, increased positive social memory, and promoted positive value transmission to social interactions.

    “IN-OT facilitated responses to positive social cues, increased positive social memory, and promoted positive value transmission to social interactions (5, 15, 33).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [5] Ma Y, Shamay-Tsoory S, Han S, Zink CF. Oxytocin and social adaptation: Insights from neuroimaging studies of healthy and clinical populations. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016;20(2):133–145. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [15] Ma Y, Liu Y, Rand DG, Heatherton TF, Han S. Opposing oxytocin effects on intergroup cooperative behavior in intuitive and reflective minds. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015;40(10):2379–2387. doi: 10.1038/npp.2015.87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [33] Bartz JA, Zaki J, Bolger N, Ochsner KN. Social effects of oxytocin in humans: Context and person matter. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011;15(7):301–309. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    OT may make positive information easier to be accessed and incorporated, so as to enhance recognition and memory of social cues and facilitate approach to positive signals.

    “Thus, OT may make positive information easier to be accessed and incorporated, so as to enhance recognition and memory of social cues and facilitate approach to positive signals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Excessive optimism, especially ignoring undesirable information, can be maladaptive.

    “excessive optimism, especially ignoring undesirable information, can be maladaptive (1, 2, 55)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [1] McKay RT, Dennett DC. The evolution of misbelief. Behav Brain Sci. 2009;32(6):493–510, discussion 510–561. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X09990975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] Sharot T. The optimism bias. Curr Biol. 2011;21(23):R941–R945. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [55] Varki A. Human uniqueness and the denial of death. Nature. 2009;460(7256):684. doi: 10.1038/460684c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Excessive optimism makes people less likely to take precautionary actions.

    “and makes people less likely to take precautionary actions (56).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [56] Weinstein ND, Klein WM. Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychol. 1995;14(2):132–140. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.14.2.132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Our findings suggest a cognitive mechanism underlying such valence-specific OT effects: the facilitation of learning from positive information for subsequent updates and the reduction of learning from negative information.

    “Our findings suggest a cognitive mechanism underlying such valence-specific OT effects: the facilitation of learning from positive information for subsequent updates and the reduction of learning from negative information.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Previous studies showed that OT reduced recognition of and affective responses to negative signals, and failed to change behavior after the receipt of negative information.

    “Consistently, previous studies showed that OT reduced recognition of and affective responses to negative signals, and failed to change behavior after the receipt of negative information (i.e., social betrayal; ref. 17).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] Baumgartner T, Heinrichs M, Vonlanthen A, Fischbacher U, Fehr E. Oxytocin shapes the neural circuitry of trust and trust adaptation in humans. Neuron. 2008;58(4):639–650. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Research has suggested the engagement of dopamine in optimistic updating.

    “Research has suggested the engagement of dopamine in optimistic updating (59).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [59] Sharot T, Guitart-Masip M, Korn CW, Chowdhury R, Dolan RJ. How dopamine enhances an optimism bias in humans. Curr Biol. 2012;22(16):1477–1481. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.05.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Enhancing dopaminergic function selectively reduced updating upon undesirable feedback without having an influence on updating upon desirable feedback.

    “Enhancing dopaminergic function selectively reduced updating upon undesirable feedback without having an influence on updating upon desirable feedback (59).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [59] Sharot T, Guitart-Masip M, Korn CW, Chowdhury R, Dolan RJ. How dopamine enhances an optimism bias in humans. Curr Biol. 2012;22(16):1477–1481. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.05.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    All three studies were conducted by following a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, between-subjects design.

    “All three studies were conducted by following a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, between-subjects design.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Administration of dihydroxy-l-phenylalanine that enhanced dopaminergic function facilitated optimism by impairing updating upon undesirable feedback.

    “Administration of dihydroxy-l-phenylalanine that enhanced dopaminergic function facilitated optimism by impairing updating upon undesirable feedback (59).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [59] Sharot T, Guitart-Masip M, Korn CW, Chowdhury R, Dolan RJ. How dopamine enhances an optimism bias in humans. Curr Biol. 2012;22(16):1477–1481. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.05.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Methods

    Participants provided written informed consent.

    “Participants provided written informed consent after the experimental procedure had been fully explained and were reminded of their right to withdraw at any time during the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    The experimental procedures were in line with the standards set by the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by the local Research Ethics Committee.

    “The experimental procedures were in line with the standards set by the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by the local Research Ethics Committee of the State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Both the oxytocinergic and dopaminergic systems were involved in optimism.

    “Although both the oxytocinergic and dopaminergic systems were involved in optimism”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [59] Sharot T, Guitart-Masip M, Korn CW, Chowdhury R, Dolan RJ. How dopamine enhances an optimism bias in humans. Curr Biol. 2012;22(16):1477–1481. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.05.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Methods

    Twelve participants (3.75%) were dropped from data analysis because of technical problems or participants' failure to complete the study.

    “Twelve participants (3.75%) were dropped from data analysis because of technical problems or participants’ failure to complete the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
50 of 50

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There has been little research examining OT effects on the cognitive dynamics during which feedback modifies cognitive processes and behavioral outcomes.

    “However, there has been surprisingly little research examining OT effects on the cognitive dynamics during which feedback modifies cognitive processes and behavioral outcomes.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Individuals with high depression or anxiety traits are less socially adapted.

    “Given the finding of stronger effects of IN-OT on less socially adapted individuals (34–36), we hypothesized that IN-OT would produce stronger effects on belief updating in individuals with high (relative to low) depression and anxiety traits.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The cognitive mechanisms underlying the potential therapeutic effect of OT in depressed patients remain unclear.

    “Although IN-OT has been applied to depression in a few clinical trials (24, 25), the cognitive mechanisms underlying the potential therapeutic effect of OT in depressed patients remain unclear.”
3 of 3

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?

  • Based on an estimated average small-to-medium effect size of oxytocin effect on social behaviors (Cohen's d = 0.28), 104 participants were needed to detect a significant effect (α = 0.05, β = 0.80, two-by-two mixed ANOVA interaction effects).

    “Based on an estimated average small-to-medium effect size of oxytocin effect on social behaviors (Cohen's d = 0.28) 53 .104 participants were needed to detect a significant effect (α = 0.05, β = 0.80, two-by-two mixed ANOVA interaction effects).”

    From Oxytocin modulates social value representations in the amygdala (2019) · cites this paper as [53]

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.

  • Consistentt(96) = 2.72reported p = .008 · recomputed p = .008

    “t (96) = 2.72, p = .008”

  • Consistentt(93) = 2.08reported p = .041 · recomputed p = .040

    “t(93) = 2.08, p = .041”

  • Consistentt(112) = 2.76reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .007

    “t(112) = 2.76, p = .007”

  • ConsistentF(1, 86) = 6.65reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .012

    “F(1,86) = 6.65, p = .012”

  • ConsistentF(1, 87) = 5.04reported p = .027 · recomputed p = .027

    “F(1,87) = 5.04, p = .027”

  • ConsistentF(1, 110) = 9.2reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “F(1,110) = 9.20, p = .003”

  • ConsistentF(1, 88) = 10.74reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(1,88) = 10.74, p = .002”

  • ConsistentF(1, 107) = 11.15reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(1,107) = 11.15, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 97) = 33.27reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,97) = 33.27, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 93) = 34.51reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,93) = 34.51, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 97) = 8.4reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(1,97) = 8.40, p = .005”

  • ConsistentF(1, 93) = 7.28reported p = .008 · recomputed p = .008

    “F(1,93) = 7.28, p = .008”

  • ConsistentF(1, 97) = 6.4reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .013

    “F(1,97) = 6.40, p = .013”

  • ConsistentF(1, 93) = 4.57reported p = .035 · recomputed p = .035

    “F(1,93) = 4.57, p = .035”

  • ConsistentF(1, 97) = 4.13reported p = .045 · recomputed p = .045

    “F(1,97) = 4.13, p = .045”

  • ConsistentF(1, 93) = 5.56reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .020

    “F(1,93) = 5.56, p = .020”

  • ConsistentF(1, 112) = 6.047reported p = .015 · recomputed p = .015

    “F(1, 112) = 6.047, p = .015”

  • Consistentt(194) = -2.34reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .020

    “t(194) = −2.34, p = .020”

  • Consistentt(193) = -2.951reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004

    “t(193) = −2.951, p = .004”

  • Consistentt(194) = -3.82reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(194) = −3.82, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(193) = -3.603reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(193) = −3.603, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(192) = -3.988reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(192) = −3.988, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(193) = -4.762reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(193) = −4.762, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(193) = 3.395reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(193) = 3.395, p = .001”

  • Consistentt(193) = 3.011reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “t(193) = 3.011, p = .003”

  • Consistentt(193) = 5.297reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(193) = 5.297, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 306) = 246.482reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,306) = 246.482, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 306) = 11.779reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,306) = 11.779, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 306) = 13.687reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,306) = 13.687, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 112) = 4.697reported p = .032 · recomputed p = .032

    “F(1,112) = 4.697, p = .032”

  • ConsistentF(1, 112) = 4.32reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .040

    “F(1,112) = 4.320, p = .040”

  • ConsistentF(1, 112) = 17.966reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,112) = 17.966, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 112) = 4.535reported p = .035 · recomputed p = .035

    “F(1,112) = 4.535, p = .035”

  • ConsistentF(1, 112) = 13.277reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,112) = 13.277, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 56) = 28.099reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,56) = 28.099, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(111) = 1.42reported p = .157 · recomputed p = .158

    “t(111) = 1.42, p = .157”

  • Consistentt(112) = 2.46reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .015

    “t(112) = 2.46, p = .016”

37 of 37

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.

  • Study 1 treatment comparison implies 98 participants, not 99

    Minor

    The reported independent-samples t test has 96 degrees of freedom, implying 98 participants in a standard two-group test. The Methods say 99 study 1 participants were included in the final analysis; no exclusion for this comparison is stated.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ma, Y., Li, S., Wang, C., Liu, Y., Li, W., Yan, X., Chen, Q., & Han, S.
Affiliations
  • Beijing Normal University (CN)
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Lieber Institute for Brain Development (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2016-08
Volume
113
Issue
33
Pages
9256-9261
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1604285113
PMC
PMC4995949
OpenAlex
W2482655310
Semantic Scholar
a15b1a43721ef6d1403512097531786b70dde21d
Cited by
54
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3
FWCI
7.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.pnas.org/preview_site/misc/userlicense.xhtml (vor, 184 d)
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (31470986)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
oxytocin, belief updating, feedback learning, optimism, learning rate, social adaptation, depression, anxiety, intranasal oxytocin
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Anxiety, Culture, Depression, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Judgment, Learning, Male, Oxytocin, Social Adjustment, Feedback, Psychological

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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