, Armonk, NY). The differences ranging from communities when you look at the forms were looked at from the independent sample t-evaluation. To own assessment of your regularity off delivery about your participant’s handedness, i determined Fisher’s precise take to (two-sided). Behavioural studies have been examined using blended-model ANOVA towards circumstances displayed “face phrase” (i.age., mad, happy, neutral, and painful photos) and you may character of feelings (angry, pleased, simple, and painful), that’s, the impulse out-of members additionally the anywhere between topic foundation class (BPD, control). One-decide to try t-screening were used to assess if classification feedback differed significantly of the benefits 50, which was the midst of brand new artwork measure and therefore fifty ways inconclusiveness in the attribution of visualize descriptions. To research whether habituation took place, i calculated combined-model ANOVAs towards the contained in this-topic grounds “run” (runs 1–4) and the between-topic basis group (BPD, control). The brand new ANOVA was calculated per matter by themselves (“empathy profile,” “sympathy pain,” and you can “well-being”) and 
for the reaction date, which was recognized as the first effect towards the earliest concern at the conclusion of for every cut-off.
The fMRI data were analyzed by mixed-model ANOVAs with the factors, pain condition (pain/no pain), facial emotion (angry, happy, neutral, and painful, no emotion), and group (BPD/HC), for each region separately. We calculated an additional mixed-model ANOVA including only patients with BPD and the within-subject factors pain condition (pain/no pain) and facial emotion (angry, happy, neutral, and painful, no emotion) and the between-subject factor medication (patients with BPD receiving medication and patients free of medication), for each region separately. Dependent and independent t-tests were used for post hoc comparisons. All A;Geisser corrected. According to the work of Costantini et al., we calculated correlations between IRI scores and brain activity during painful conditions only for the supramarginal gyri (49). In detail, we calculated Pearson correlation coefficients for each IRI subscale and activation during “pain” conditions pooled for emotional faces. We further corrected for multiple testing with results considered significant only if p < 0.05/4 = 0.0125.
Fellow member Properties
I discovered high differences between groups getting IRI PT and you may PD scores (come across Dining table 2), however to own age and you can IQ and you will handedness.
Desk dos Fellow member attributes and results of comparisons of Interpersonal Reactivity Directory (IRI) efficiency (M = imply and you will range, SD = basic deviation) ranging from clients that have BPD and fit controls (HC). T-test statistics (t, p, and you can Cohen’s d) are said. Towards analysis out of handedness, Fisher’s exact sample is calculated together with p-worth (two-sided direct take to well worth) try stated.
Behavioral Investigation
The mixed-model ANOVA with the factors “facial expression” and “identification” and group revealed a significant main effect of facial expression (F(2.3, 73.7) = 9.11, p < 0.001) and identification (F(2.6, 88.1) = , p < 0.001) and the interaction facial expression–identification (F(3.3, 106.3) = , p < 0.001), indicating selective rating depending on facial expression and identification. Importantly, no main effect or interaction with group appeared, showing that both patients and controls recognized the emotional content equally well. In addition, participants recognized the emotions correctly as indicated by significantly higher ratings than the “inconclusive value” of 50 (angry expressions rated as angry: t(33) = , p < 0.001; happy expressions rated as happy t(33) = , p < 0.001; neutral facial expressions rated as neutral t(33) = 7.05, p < 0.001; painful facial expressions rated as painful t(33) = , p < 0.001). All other comparisons (e.g., angry faces described as neutral) reached significance with values lower than 50, which stands for rebuttal of the suggested emotion category. In other words, participants did not mistake any emotion for another. For the behavioral results, ratings of one patient and four controls are missing due to timing/technical problems (BPD, n = 19; HC, n = 15).