Abstract
Major depression is one of the most common mental disorders, affecting millions of people around the globe. In recent years, researchers increasingly investigated social cognition in depression and discovered pronounced alterations. A special focus has been put on mentalising or Theory of Mind, the ability to recognize and understand another person’s thoughts and feelings. While there is behavioral evidence for deficits in this ability in patients with depression as well as specialized therapeutic interventions, the neuroscientific substrates are only beginning to be understood. In this mini-review, we take a social neuroscience perspective to analyse the importance of altered mentalising in depression and whether it can help to understand the origins and perpetuation of the disorder. We will put a special focus on treatment options and corresponding neural changes to identify relevant paths for future (neuroscientific) research.
1. Introduction
Over the course of their lifetime, 10–20% of the population will suffer from major depressive disorder (MDD) (1, 2). Risk of recurrence is high, with up to 35% of patients experiencing at least one further episode within 15 years (3). For up to 25% of patients, MDD takes a chronic course (4). While the core symptoms of MDD concern depressed mood, loss of energy, and negative thought patterns, researchers and practitioners increasingly turned to the concept of mentalising (i.e., the ability to infer thoughts and emotions of other people) to better understand some of the symptoms and to try to predict the course of the disorder. In this review, we will take a social neuroscience perspective to shed light on the role of (reduced) mentalising in depression. Section 2 gives a working definition of mentalising and briefly covers measurements and neural foundations of mentalising in healthy people. In Section 3, we discuss behavioral and neuroscientific findings regarding mentalising in depression, origins of impaired mentalising, and its predictive qualities. Finally, Section 4 covers different treatment options (psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and brain stimulation) and their behavioral and neural impact on mentalising. The discussion aims to identify relevant paths for future research.
2. Mentalising
Broadly speaking, mentalising, also called “perspective-taking,” can be defined as having a mental representation of another person’s mental states (e.g., thoughts and emotions). The word “mentalising” has been in use for well over a century (5), and is currently in use in areas as diverse as evolutionary biology, primate research, neuroscience, psychotherapy, or developmental psychology. Naturally, a concept that is prominent in such diverse areas will have multiple, sometimes diverging definitions. For example, some authors use mentalisation only to refer to the representation of affective states and “theory of mind” (ToM) to describe the representation of epistemic states (like beliefs or intentions) (6, 7). For others, ToM comprises both (8), sometimes with a differentiation between affective and cognitive ToM (9, 10). In this paper we follow the broader and common meaning, defining mentalising as the ability to recognize and form a mental representation of both affective and cognitive states of others while suppressing one’s own (11). Mentalising is crucial for basic processes like emotion recognition (12) as well as for successful social interactions and develops gradually during childhood (13). While a comprehensive review of mentalising in healthy people is beyond the scope of this article [but see (14)], we will here present key findings relevant for the understanding of (neural) alterations related to mentalising in MDD.
2.1. Measuring mentalising
There is a large number of tasks used to measure mentalising [for an overview, see (8)]. For example, basic visual perspective-tasking tasks ask participants to imagine taking the (physical) perspective of somebody else (15). Basic emotional tasks require participants to label emotions from pictures of faces or eyes (16). More complex tasks present participants with stories and ask for social comprehension [e.g., understanding a faux-pas (17)]. Finally, video-based tasks present social interactions and ask participants for thoughts, feelings, intentions or motives of the people in the film (18, 19). Recently, critique emerged about a number of mentalising tasks, questioning whether they actually require participants to form a mental model about somebody else’s mind (8). For example, one could argue that recognizing a facial emotion is possible without forming a mental representation of what another person is feeling or thinking (and why), and different social cognition tasks seem to represent slightly different aspects of underlying, hierarchical cognitive functions (20). Given these different approaches, it seems advisable to take the specific task into account when interpreting study results.
2.2. Mentalising and the “social brain”
As a complex social-cognitive function, mentalising is rooted in a large network of different brain areas. A recent meta-analysis found overlapping, but distinct neural networks for cognitive and affective mentalising (21): cognitive mentalising correlated with activation of the temporoparietal junction (TPJ), ventromedial prefrontal cortex (PFC), precuneus, inferior temporal gyrus and temporal pole, among others. Affective mentalising leads to activation in in the TPJ, middle temporal gyrus, precuneus and prefrontal areas, among others. Brain stimulation studies showed that disrupting the TPJ reduces people’s ability to mentalise with others or even with their own future self (22). Potentially, this is because the TPJ is required to differentiate one’s own thoughts and feelings from other people’s (23). Precuneus and medial PFC, on the other hand, might be important for attributing mental states to other people (21), and default mode network connectivity in the medial PFC correlates with social (dys)function (24). It has been suggested that affective mentalising recruits both empathy and cognitive mentalising (10), and this idea is indeed supported by the overlapping networks for these functions (21) and the fact that mentalising with another person increases empathic concern (25). Still, empathy and mentalising are discernible both neutrally and behaviorally.
2.3. Psychodynamic theories and reflective functioning
Importantly, the term mentalising (often used interchangeably with “reflective functioning”) is also used in the literature on psychodynamic psychotherapy, where it has a slightly broader meaning: here, it means the capacity to understand one’s own mental states as well as the mental states of others (26). Additionally, a high degree of mentalising requires people to have insight into why people behave the way they do (i.e., have insight into their own motives and potentially biographic explanations). Finally, a good mentaliser should acknowledge that mentalising can never be perfect. Reflective functioning is most often rated by a trained clinician, but a self-report questionnaire also exists (27). We here use mentalising in the narrower definition given in the previous section, but do discuss relevant psychodynamic research where it fits within the scope of this article (especially when discussing treatment options in Section 4.1).
3. Mentalising in depression
Traditionally, research on MDD has focused on the core emotional and cognitive symptoms such as low mood, loss of interest, loss of energy, reduced concentration, negative thought patterns or rumination. However, interpersonal relations and mentalising have also garnered substantial interest (28). Indeed, a recent meta-analysis established substantially reduced mentalising in MDD, for both cognitive and affective mentalising, and for both decoding tasks (e.g., emotion recognition) and reasoning tasks (e.g., identifying false-beliefs or intentions) (29, 30). For the affective component, these deficits might partly stem from a negative evaluation bias in MDD, so that patients with MDD are more likely to infer negative mental states (31, 32). Neither age nor gender seem to influence the degree of impairment, while people with more severe depressive symptomology show the largest deficits in mentalising (29, 30). Because studies showing the most pronounced deficits typically included patients with a chronic course of MDD, some authors have argued that mentalising deficits are particularly prominent in chronic depression (33). However, when directly comparing first-episode and chronic MDD, these differences apparently do not appear (34, 35). While chronicity therefore cannot be regarded as moderator of mentalising deficits, there is evidence that mentalising might be more strongly impaired in MDD with psychotic symptoms (36). Additionally, one might wonder whether specific subtypes of patients with MDD also show specific impairments (e.g., only relating to affective or cognitive mentalising). This sounds particularly prominent as MDD is somewhat of an umbrella category, and the pathogenesis and biographical details differ vastly. However, concrete evidence for specific subtypes regarding mentalising is sparse and overall, both affective and cognitive mentalising seemed to be impaired in MDD. As of yet, the only reliable finding regarding subtypes seems to be that mentalising deficits correlate with severity of symptoms, with more severely depressed patients showing the most pronounced deficits in mentalising, and sub-clinical samples showing no mentalising deficits at all (29). These findings, however, extend to mentalising overall, and there is no evidence for a specific pattern of mentalising deficits.
One might also speculate about the influence of comorbid disorders on mentalising: for example, disorders like social phobia or eating disorders seem to correspond to over-mentalising (37, 38), yet at the same time often occur together with MDD. As, however, over- and under-mentalising can co-occur in the same individual (39), these findings might be less puzzling than one might think (38). Still, it remains entirely possible that different subgroups exhibit specific patterns (e.g., patients who suffered from depressive symptoms since adolescence vs. patients who developed them only later in life). Until more research is conducted, however, any findings on depression subtypes should be interpreted as preliminary results, and we do agree with Bora’s and Berk’s opinion (30) that more research into mentalising in different subtypes of MDD is needed.
Given the high number of patients with MDD with comorbid personality disorders, one might wonder whether it is the personality disorders, not MDD, that actually leads to decreased mentalising. This might sound even more plausible because by its very definition, personality disorders are characterized by impaired self-functioning or interpersonal functioning (40). However, a number of studies showed that deficits in mentalising also occur in MDD when controlling for personality disorders (41, 42) or when excluding patients with personality disorder altogether (43, 44). Thus, is seems valid to assume that reduced mentalising in MDD is not just confounded by comorbid personality disorders.
As most studies on mentalising in MDD are cross-sectional, they cannot inform us on whether reduced mentalising is a result of MDD, or whether it precedes the disorder and thus constitutes a risk factor or even cause of MDD. There have been, however, some theoretical attempts to explain a potential causal effect of mentalising on MDD. For example, in the context of CBASP, it is assumed that (chronically) depressed patients exhibit (child-like) preoperational thinking patterns, struggle with “true empathy,” and are “pervasively egocentric.” This is supposed to lead to frustrating interpersonal situations that do not satisfy one’s interpersonal needs, which ultimately would lead to the development and maintenance of depressive symptoms (45). Another explanation is the idea that reduced theory of mind leads to a pattern of social interaction that might drive other people away, with the resulting social isolation promoting depressive symptoms (46). Additionally, there is evidence that deficits in ToM persist after remission: Inoue et al. (47) showed that patients with remitted MDD performed worse than matched controls in a false-belief task (but no differences were observed in factual observations during the task). These results are supported by Ladegaard et al. (48), who showed impaired social cognition (including ToM) but normal cognitive functioning. Additionally, stronger deficits in ToM predict both a higher risk of relapse and more severe symptoms in MDD (49, 50). Thus, it seems likely that reduced mentalising contributes to MDD, and is not merely a consequence. It should be noted, however, that the opposite route of action has also been discussed. For example, it has been proposed that a negativity bias and constant rumination in MDD lead to impaired mentalising because less cognitive resources are available to accurately interpret social cues, or that social withdrawal typical to MDD leads to less “practice” of mentalising and social skills (29, 51).
There are only few neuroscientific studies investigating mentalising in patients with MDD. Lai et al. (52) showed altered functional connectivity in a network comprising areas that have been related to ToM before, such as the left precentral gyrus, left angular gyrus, bilateral rolandic operculum and left inferior frontal gyrus. However, as these brain areas are involved in many cognitive processes, it remains speculative whether alterations are actually related to altered ToM. Converging evidence stems from studies on postpartum depression: using near-infrared spectroscopy, Morgan et al. could analyse brain connectivity during a naturalistic mother–child interaction (reading a book together) (53). Mothers with more severe depressive symptoms showed a lower connectivity between the right TPJ and lateral PFC, but greater connectivity between the right TPJ and the anterior medial PFC. The authors interpret their results as indication that during mentalising about their infant’s thoughts and feelings, mothers with MDD might be less able to express and regulate their own emotions, but better at engaging in emotional bonding with their infants, although this remains somewhat speculative.
At least partly, deficits in mentalising and corresponding neural alterations seem to be rooted in negative experience early in life. Indeed, childhood maltreatment is not only a risk factor for (chronic) depression (54), it also predicts lower mentalising later in life (55, 56). Additionally, Hentze et al. (55) showed that childhood maltreatment correlates positively with amygdala activation during an affective ToM task. This is in line with research showing that childhood maltreatment leads to heightened amygdala responsiveness as well as reduced gray matter in insula, orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate gyrus, superior temporal sulcus, middle temporal lobe, and caudate (57).
The fact that childhood maltreatment predicts both mentalising and MDD gives further support to the idea that mentalising might precede MDD and that reduced mentalising might pose a vulnerability for MDD, potentially mediated through neural changes in the amygdala system. While the amygdala might not be a prototypical part of the mentalising system, it has been argued that the amygdala is involved in fast, automatic mentalising (58) and patients with amygdala damage show impairments in mentalising (59). This might be particularly true if the mentalising task at hand involves emotion recognition and processing, whereby the mentalising system might require output from the amygdala (60).
Interestingly, neural alterations are also visible in individuals with high familiar risk for MDD. Using a family network analysis, Abraham et al. (61) showed that individuals with heightened familiar risk exhibited reduced influence of the inferior frontal gyrus and posterior superior temporal gyrus within a social cognition network. Additionally, these neural alterations predicted both depressive symptoms and deficits in interpersonal adjustment at an 8-year follow-up.
Taken together, there seems to be clear evidence that mentalising is reduced in MDD and that patients with reduced mentalising are at higher risk of recurrence, that mentalising deficits correspond to pronounced changes in the “social brain” and that these cognitive and neural alterations can at least partly be matched unto early-life stressors.
4. Treatment options targeting mentalising
4.1. Psychotherapy
There is a plethora of psychotherapeutic approaches that address peoples’ cognition and emotions toward others. Most prominent probably, there are psychodynamic therapy (with a focus on unresolved inner conflicts), cognitive-behavioral therapy (with a focus on the learning history and resulting dysfunctional thought patterns) and interpersonal psychotherapy (with a focus on the ability to assert needs and wishes in interpersonal relationships). Differences in treatment success between all types of psychotherapy are small for MDD (62), although psychodynamic therapy might potentially be least effective (63). Regardless of therapy type, though, less than 40% of patients with MDD respond to psychotherapy (62). Most psychotherapeutic interventions do not have an explicit focus on mentalising, but focus on depressive symptoms at large. Still, mentalising is being addressed by a number of them, sometimes implicitly. Among all types of therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy most directly addresses interpersonal relations and tries to aid patients with managing social situations and it has been proposed that mentalising constitutes a potential mechanism of change in interpersonal therapy (64). Indeed, a randomized trial with 96 patients showed that even though both cognitive-behavioral therapy and interpersonal therapy were effective for the treatment of MDD, only the latter led to an improvement in mentalising (65). Standard cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) puts a strong focus on automatic and maladaptive thought patterns, challenging patients’ implicit and explicit assumptions. Because these automatic thoughts can also relate to other people (e.g., “my colleagues have not contacted me since I’m in the hospital, that’s because they do not like me”), it has been proposed that CBT targets mentalising almost by default (66, 67), even though enhancing mentalising is normally no explicit goal of CBT. However, empirical support for the assumed improvements in mentalising is lacking. Similarly, proponents of psychodynamic treatments (which aim to give patients insight into inner conflicts affecting their lives) have argued that mentalising is particularly prone to change through psychodynamic therapies (33). Empirical evidence, however, is somewhat mixed, with some studies showing improvements of mentalising (68), others showing no effect (69) or an effect only at a later follow-up (70). Additionally, neither of the studies were placebo-controlled. This might pose a problem especially for the studies showing an improvement: not only is it unclear what caused the changes, but by the nature of the research design, the researchers who rated reflective functioning could not have been blinded [for an overview of other psychotherapy studies using reflective functioning but not as outcome variable (e.g., as predictor of therapy success), see also (33)]. In addition to these “classic” approaches, there are also a number of specialized therapeutic interventions with a stronger focus on mentalising. One CBT approach is the “cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy” [CBASP, (45)]. It assumes that chronically depressed patients often lack the belief that their behavior will elicit an (emotional or behavioral) response in others and therefore remain inactive. Thus, therapy sessions focus on the analysis of what the patient did (or did not) do to achieve their interpersonal goals, with the explicit goal of fostering mentalising. A recent review concludes that CBASP might be more effective than both treatment-as-usual and interpersonal psychotherapy (71). However, we are not aware of a study that directly measures the effect of CBASP on an established mentalising task—which is somewhat surprising since the method claims to improve depressive symptoms via improvement of mentalising skills. The most noteworthy psychodynamic approach with an explicit focus on mentalising is mentalisation-based therapy [MBT, (72)], aiming to improve both the understanding of others as well as one self. MBT has been shown to be effective for a range of disorders, although it might be less effective for the treatment of MDD than third-wave cognitive-behavioral therapy (73). Still, more research is needed to make conclusive statements. Finally, there are trainings that do not aim to address depressive symptoms at large, but specifically target mentalising, but they are still somewhat niche (74). Unfortunately, neuroscientific studies of changes in mentalising elicited by psychotherapy are relatively rare, but some first evidence suggests neural changes in the mentalising system following psychotherapy. For example, in a small study on 10 patients, a 12-week CBASP-therapy enhanced amygdala reactivity toward emotional faces (75), which might indicate that neural emotion processing is altered after therapy. Additionally, there is some evidence from studying patients with bipolar disorder in remission: Meyer et al. (76) investigated the impact of a program with 24 h of CBT, targeting impulse regulation, ToM, and social skills. Not only did the intervention stabilize patients, they also showed increased activity in what the authors called the “ToM network” (bilateral TPJ, posterior cingulate cortex, precuneus) during a ToM task. However, the neural changes were not accompanied by improved ToM performances in the task and ToM performance was unrelated to clinical outcomes. Thus, the clinical relevance of the neural changes remains somewhat unclear. Additionally, we do not know whether the results generalize to patients with MDD, even though this seems likely. Comparatively more research has dealt with the question of neural changes following psychotherapy without a specific focus on mentalising. Indeed, meta-analytic evidence shows decreased activation in the insula and the anterior cingulate cortex following psychotherapy for MDD and/or anxiety (77). Another meta-analysis found that psychotherapy (compared to pharmacotherapy) led to more activity in the medial PFC (78), which is prominently involved in the mentalising system. Thus, one might speculate whether these changes affect mentalising, but more evidence is needed.
4.2. Pharmacotherapeutic effects on mentalising
There have been theories about a potential mode of action of (serotonergic) antidepressants through social cognition, mainly based on the involvement of serotonergic systems in social cognition (79). However, concrete evidence for a positive effect of pharmacotherapy on mentalising is scarce: there are studies showing an improvement in emotion recognition after starting antidepressant medication (80, 81), but they are not placebo-controlled. Thus, it remains unclear whether improvements actually stem from the medication or from other factors such as the placebo effect or regression to the mean (82). Additionally, changes in mentalising capacity were visible long before the antidepressant effects, which might indicate that changes were due to re-test effects rather than actual changes caused by the drugs, although this remains speculative. On a neural level, pharmacotherapy seems to lead to alterations in amygdala activity (78), which is involved in emotion processing (but many other processes as well, see above). Apart from traditional antidepressants, there has been some interest into the effects of oxytocin as a potential treatment in MDD. It has long been speculated whether the oxytocin system is altered in MDD (83), but a recent meta-analysis showed now difference in endogenous oxytocin levels between patients with MDD and healthy controls (84) and evidence for an antidepressive effect of (exogenous) oxytocin is lacking (85). Still, oxytocin seems to improve mentalising in other disorders [(86, 87), but see also (88)] and oxytocin has pronounced effects on neural areas involved in social cognition, including the medial PFC, insula, and caudate (89). Thus, it might influence mentalising in MDD, but further research is warranted. Other drugs have also been discussed for the treatment of MDD, including ketamine, psychedelics, and amphetamines. However, because their use is still rare or even experimental, and because evidence of effects on ToM in MDD is lacking or shown to be absent (90), further research is needed before any conclusions can be drawn. In sum, it is currently somewhat unclear whether (antidepressant) drugs alter the mentalising system of patients with MDD.
4.3. Brain stimulation
In recent years, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has become an effective and increasingly popular treatment for MDD (91). Typically, patients receive a series of TMS sessions, during which their cortex (typically the dorsolateral PFC; dlPFC) is stimulated using electric current produced by a coil placed on their scalp. There is good evidence that TMS can reduce mentalising (9, 92, 93), yet studies showing improved mentalising following TMS are rare [but do exist, see (90, 94)]. To our knowledge, there are only two studies testing the influence of TMS on mentalising in MDD, and none using neuroscientific techniques. A pilot study without control-group on 14 patients (95) showed no overall effect of a 4-week TMS treatment at the dlPFC on mentalising (specifically, emotion recognition). There was, however, a statistically significant interaction between the improvement on core depressive symptoms and mentalising. Similarly, a larger, sham-controlled study on 120 patients (96) showed improvements in both cognitive and affective mentalising after a 4-week TMS treatment. Specifically, patients showed improvements in emotion recognition as well as improvements in inferring the intentions behind indirect speech utterances or hints. Thus, TMS treatment does indeed seem to improve mentalising in MDD. However, it should be noted that treatment also improved general (non-social) cognitive abilities. Thus, it is possible that TMS did not specifically affect mentalising but that patients’ improved cognitive functions influenced the mentalising task (e.g., because they were able to concentrate better or were more alert), especially since it is known that overall cognitive functioning affects mentalising both in healthy people (97) as well as other mental disorders (98). It therefore remains unclear whether TMS can be used to specifically enhance mentalising in MDD, although it does seem to have a positive effect overall. Another type of brain stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulations (tDCS), works by applying a low electrical current directly to a person’s scalp, with the aim to increase or decrease the functioning of underlying brain areas. While not routinely used in the treatment of MDD, there is some indication that tDCS to the dlPFC might alleviate depressive symptoms (99, 100). Additionally, there is evidence that tDCS to the TPJ (101, 102), but also the dlPFC (103) enhances mentalising. Thus, it might well be that tDCS could be used to enhance mentalising in MDD, but further research is needed to provide empirical support for this assumption. For both TMS and tDCS, protocols for MDD typically focus on the dlPFC, yet there are other areas with more prominent connections to mentalising, such as medial PF or TJP. It might therefore be worth investigating whether different stimulation locations could have positive effects on mentalising in MDD.
5. Discussion
Mentalising capacity is substantially impaired for many patients with MDD. These deficits seem to stem at least partly from negative early-life experiences (e.g., childhood maltreatment) and correspond to neural alterations to the mentalising network (e.g., TPJ, inferior frontal gyrus) and connected structures (e.g., amygdala). MDD is currently treated with a number of different approaches, yet evidence of effects on mentalising are rare. However, a number of psychotherapeutic approaches have started to focus implicitly or explicitly on mentalising to improve patients’ well-being. In light of the evidence today, we believe that mentalising might be a prominent target to improve the course of MDD and prevent recurrence of the disorder. However, several aspects remain unclear and should be investigated in future research. In particular, it might be worth identifying whether a causal link between reduced mentalising (before onset of the disorder) and MDD does exist, although this would require large longitudinal data sets. Whether strengthening mentalising can reduce risk of relapse or even improve well-being of patients in acute phases would be another valuable line of research. Comparisons of different types of mentalising, and comparisons of different groups of patients (e.g., first episode MDD vs. chronic depression) are still rare and might be worthwhile investigating. Similarly, one might wonder whether patients that developed depressive symptoms as reactions to acute life-stressors but did not suffer from negative events during childhood are similarly affected in terms of mentalising capacity. It might also be helpful to conduct more longitudinal research, to better understand when reduced mentalising (or social cognition more broadly) is a cause for MDD, and when it can also be a consequence of it. Finally, much of the existing knowledge stems from research from countries of the Global North, even though culture influences the role of social cognition in mental disorders (104). Getting a better understanding of the role of reduced mentalising for different patient populations might help to tailor more targeted interventions. Because mentalising deficits sometimes persist after the end of an acute depressive episode (47), but also predict future recurrence of MDD, investigating mentalising training as relapse prevention after successful therapy would be very informative. Because much is still unknown about the role of mentalising in MDD, researchers might want to include at least a basic mentalising measure in future intervention studies. From a neuroscientific point of view, it could be interesting to not only measure neural alterations in patients with MDD, but also changes following targeted interventions. Ultimately, of course, patients with MDD seek help not because they want to improve their mentalising abilities, but because they suffer from the core depressive symptoms. Thus, improving mentalising will likely not be a target in and of itself, but rather a tool to achieve better quality of life. While the existing evidence warrants caution, taking a stronger focus on (improving) the mentalising capacity of depressed patients might still be a promising lever for change.
Funding
This work has partially been funded by the Typhaine Foundation.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Author contributions
BPL and DK developed the concept of the manuscript. BPL wrote the first draft. DK and KK read and complemented the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1.
BrometEAndradeLHHwangISampsonNAAlonsoJde GirolamoGet al. Cross-national epidemiology of DSM-IV major depressive episode. BMC Med. (2011) 9:90. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-90
2.
KesslerRCBrometEJ. The epidemiology of depression across cultures. Annu Rev Public Health. (2013) 34:119–38. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114409
3.
HardeveldFSpijkerJDe GraafRNolenWBeekmanA. Prevalence and predictors of recurrence of major depressive disorder in the adult population. Acta Psychiatr Scand. (2010) 122:184–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01519.x
4.
MurphyJAByrneGJ. Prevalence and correlates of the proposed DSM-5 diagnosis of chronic depressive disorder. J Affect Disord. (2012) 139:172–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.01.033
5.
McLarenVSharpC. What is Mentalizing? In: WilliamsLLMuirO, editors. Adolescent suicide and self-injury: Mentalizing theory and treatment [internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing (2020). 1–15.
6.
WylA. Mentalisierung und Theory of Mind. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie. (2014) 63:730–7. doi: 10.13109/prkk.2014.63.9.730
7.
GórskaDMarszałM. Mentalization and theory of mind in borderline personality organization: exploring the differences between affective and cognitive aspects of social cognition in emotional pathology. Psychiatr Pol. (2014) 48:503–13. PMID:
8.
QuesqueFRossettiY. What do theory-of-mind tasks actually measure? Theory and practice. Perspect Psychol Sci. (2020) 15:384–96. doi: 10.1177/1745691619896607
9.
KalbeESchlegelMSackATNowakDADafotakisMBangardCet al. Dissociating cognitive from affective theory of mind: a TMS study. Cortex Juni. (2010) 46:769–80. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.07.010
10.
Shamay-TsoorySGHarariHAharon-PeretzJLevkovitzY. The role of the orbitofrontal cortex in affective theory of mind deficits in criminal offenders with psychopathic tendencies. Cortex. (2010) 46:668–77. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.04.008
11.
HookerCIVeroskySCGermineLTKnightRTD’EspositoM. Mentalizing about emotion and its relationship to empathy. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. (2008) 3:204–17. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsn019
12.
RivaFTriscoliCLammCCarnaghiASilaniG. Emotional egocentricity Bias across the life-span. Front Aging Neurosci. (2016) 8:74. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00074
13.
FrithUFrithCD. Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. (2003) 358:459–73. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1218
14.
FrithCDFrithU. Mapping Mentalising in the brain In: GileadMOchsnerKN, editors. The neural basis of Mentalizing [internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing (2021). 17–45.
15.
HegartyMWallerD. A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence. (2004) 32:175–91. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2003.12.001
16.
Baron-CohenSWheelwrightSHillJRasteYPlumbI. The “Reading the mind in the eyes” test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip. (2001) 42:241–51. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00715
17.
Baron-CohenSO’riordanMStoneVJonesRPlaistedK. Recognition of faux pas by normally developing children and children with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J Autism Dev Disord. (1999) 29:407–18. doi: 10.1023/A:1023035012436
18.
DziobekIFleckSKalbeERogersKHassenstabJBrandMet al. Introducing MASC: a movie for the assessment of social cognition. J Autism Dev Disord. (2006) 36:623–36. doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0107-0
19.
KanskePBöcklerATrautweinFMSingerT. Dissecting the social brain: introducing the EmpaToM to reveal distinct neural networks and brain–behavior relations for empathy and theory of mind. NeuroImage. (2015) 15:6–19. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.082
20.
SchurzMRaduaJTholenMGMaliskeLMarguliesDSMarsRBet al. Toward a hierarchical model of social cognition: a neuroimaging meta-analysis and integrative review of empathy and theory of mind. Psychol Bull. (2021) 147:293–327. doi: 10.1037/bul0000303
21.
ArioliMCattaneoZRicciardiECanessaN. Overlapping and specific neural correlates for empathizing, affective mentalizing, and cognitive mentalizing: a coordinate-based meta-analytic study. Hum Brain Mapp. (2021) 42:4777–804. doi: 10.1002/hbm.25570
22.
SoutschekARuffCCStrombachTKalenscherTToblerPN. Brain stimulation reveals crucial role of overcoming self-centeredness in self-control. Sci Adv. (2016) 2:e1600992. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1600992
23.
AhmadNZornsSChavarriaKBrenyaJJanowskaAKeenanJP. Are we right about the right TPJ? A review of brain stimulation and social cognition in the right temporal parietal junction. Symmetry. (2021) 13:2219. doi: 10.3390/sym13112219
24.
SarisIMPenninxBWDingaRvan TolMJVeltmanDJvan der WeeNJet al. Default mode network connectivity and social dysfunction in major depressive disorder. Sci Rep. (2020) 10:1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-57033-2
25.
LammCBatsonCDDecetyJ. The neural substrate of human empathy: effects of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. J Cogn Neurosci. (2007) 19:42–58. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.42
26.
FreemanC. What is Mentalizing? An overview. Br J Psychother. (2016) 32:189–201. doi: 10.1111/bjp.12220
27.
FonagyPLuytenPMoulton-PerkinsALeeYWWarrenFHowardSet al. Development and validation of a self-report measure of mentalizing: the reflective functioning questionnaire. PLoS One. (2016) 11:e0158678. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158678
28.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders [Internet]. DSM-5-TR. American Psychiatric Association Publishing; (2022). available at: https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.
29.
NestorBASutherlandSGarberJ. Theory of mind performance in depression: a meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. (2022) 303:233–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.02.028
30.
BoraEBerkM. Theory of mind in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. (2016) 191:49–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.11.023
31.
NejatiV. Negative interpretation of social cue in depression: evidence from reading mind from eyes test. Neurol Psychiatry Brain Res. (2018) 27:12–6. doi: 10.1016/j.npbr.2017.11.001
32.
RaesFHermansDWilliamsJMG. Negative Bias in the perception of others’ facial emotional expressions in major depression: the role of depressive rumination. J Nerv Ment Dis [Internet]. (2006) 194:796–9. doi: 10.1097/01.nmd.0000240187.80270.bb
33.
Fischer-KernMTmejA. Mentalization and depression: theoretical concepts, treatment approaches and empirical studies–an overview. Z Psychosom Med Psychother. (2019) 65:162–77. doi: 10.13109/zptm.2019.65.2.162
34.
LadegaardNLysakerPHLarsenERVidebechP. A comparison of capacities for social cognition and metacognition in first episode and prolonged depression. Psychiatry Res. (2014) 220:883–9. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.10.005
35.
van RandenborghAHüffmeierJVictorDKlockeKBorlinghausJPawelzikM. Contrasting chronic with episodic depression: an analysis of distorted socio-emotional information processing in chronic depression. J Affect Disord. (2012) 141:177–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.02.039
36.
GuangWYQiangWYLinCSYanZCWangK. Theory of mind disability in major depression with or without psychotic symptoms: a componential view. Psychiatry Res. (2008) 161:153–61. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2007.07.018
37.
BallespíSVivesJSharpCTobarABarrantes-VidalN. Hypermentalizing in social anxiety: evidence for a context-dependent relationship. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1501. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01501
38.
CorsiECardiVSowdenSCollMCascinoGRiccaVet al. Socio-cognitive processing in people with eating disorders: computerized tests of mentalizing, empathy and imitation skills. Intl J Eating Disord. (2021) 54:1509–18. doi: 10.1002/eat.23556
39.
LiETCarracherEBirdT. Linking childhood emotional abuse and adult depressive symptoms: the role of mentalizing incapacity. Child Abuse Negl. (2020) 99:104253. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104253
40.
KruegerRFHobbsKA. An overview of the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders. Psychopathology. (2020) 53:126–32. doi: 10.1159/000508538
41.
Fischer-KernMFonagyPKapustaNDLuytenPBossSNadererAet al. Mentalizing in female inpatients with major depressive disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. (2013) 201:202–7. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182845c0a
42.
ZabihzadehAMalekiGRichmanMJHatamiAAlimardaniZHeidariM. Affective and cognitive theory of mind in borderline personality disorder: the role of comorbid depression. Psychiatry Res. (2017) 257:144–9. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.07.034
43.
ZobelIWerdenDLinsterHDykierekPDrielingTBergerMet al. Theory of mind deficits in chronically depressed patients. Depress Anxiety. (2010) 27:821–8. doi: 10.1002/da.20713
44.
SimonMNémethNGálberMLaknerECsernelaETényiTet al. Childhood adversity impairs theory of mind abilities in adult patients with major depressive disorder. Front Psychiatry. (2019) 10:867. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00867
45.
McCulloughJPJr. Treatment for chronic depression: cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (CBASP). J Psychother Integr. (2003) 13:241–63. doi: 10.1037/1053-0479.13.3-4.241
46.
HudsonCCShamblawALWilsonGARoesMMSabbaghMAHarknessKL. Theory of mind, excessive reassurance-seeking, and stress generation in depression: a social-cognitive-interpersonal integration. J Soc Clin Psychol. (2018) 37:725–50. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2018.37.9.725
47.
InoueYTonookaYYamadaKKanbaS. Deficiency of theory of mind in patients with remitted mood disorder. J Affect Disord. (2004) 82:403–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2004.04.004
48.
LadegaardNVidebechPLysakerPHLarsenER. The course of social cognitive and metacognitive ability in depression: deficit are only partially normalized after full remission of first episode major depression. Br J Clin Psychol. (2016) 55:269–86. doi: 10.1111/bjc.12097
49.
YamadaKInoueYKanbaS. Theory of mind ability predicts prognosis of outpatients with major depressive disorder. Psychiatry Res. (2015) 230:604–8. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2015.10.011
50.
InoueYYamadaKKanbaS. Deficit in theory of mind is a risk for relapse of major depression. J Affect Disord. (2006) 95:125–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2006.04.018
51.
LiuQZhaoXLiuWLiuQ. Empathy and depression among a Chinese sample: the moderating role of rumination and attentional shift. Front Psychol. (2022) 13:1027298. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1027298
52.
LaiCHWuYTHouYM. Functional network-based statistics in depression: theory of mind subnetwork and importance of parietal region. J Affect Disord. (2017) 217:132–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.03.073
53.
MorganJKSantosaHFridleyRMConnerKKHipwellAEForbesEEet al. Postpartum depression is associated with altered neural connectivity between affective and Mentalizing regions during mother-infant interactions. Front Glob Women’s Health. (2021) 2:2. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2021.744649
54.
NelsonJKlumparendtADoeblerPEhringT. Childhood maltreatment and characteristics of adult depression: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. (2017) 210:96–104. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.115.180752
55.
HentzeCWalterHSchrammEDrostSSchoepfDFangmeierTet al. Functional correlates of childhood maltreatment and symptom severity during affective theory of mind tasks in chronic depression. Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging. (2016) 250:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2016.02.004
56.
RnicKSabbaghMAWashburnDBagbyRMRavindranAKennedyJLet al. Childhood emotional abuse, physical abuse, and neglect are associated with theory of mind decoding accuracy in young adults with depression. Psychiatry Res. (2018) 268:501–7. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.07.045
57.
DannlowskiUStuhrmannABeutelmannVZwanzgerPLenzenTGrotegerdDet al. Limbic scars: long-term consequences of childhood maltreatment revealed by functional and structural magnetic resonance imaging. Biol Psychiatry. (2012) 71:286–93. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.10.021
58.
LuytenPFonagyP. The neurobiology of mentalizing. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. (2015) 6:366–79. doi: 10.1037/per0000117
59.
StoneVEBaron-CohenSCalderAKeaneJYoungA. Acquired theory of mind impairments in individuals with bilateral amygdala lesions. Neuropsychologia. (2003) 41:209–20. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00151-3
60.
SchmitgenMMWalterHDrostSRücklSSchnellK. Stimulus-dependent amygdala involvement in affective theory of mind generation. NeuroImage. (2016) 129:450–9. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.029
61.
AbrahamEWangYSvobCSemanekDGameroffMJShankmanSAet al. Organization of the social cognition network predicts future depression and interpersonal impairment: a prospective family-based study. Neuropsychopharmacology. (2022) 47:531–42. doi: 10.1038/s41386-021-01065-8
62.
CuijpersPKaryotakiECiharovaMMiguelCNomaHFurukawaTA. The effects of psychotherapies for depression on response, remission, reliable change, and deterioration: a meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand. (2021) 144:288–99. doi: 10.1111/acps.13335
63.
CuijpersPKaryotakiEde WitLEbertDD. The effects of fifteen evidence-supported therapies for adult depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychother Res. (2020) 30:279–93. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2019.1649732
64.
MarkowitzJCMilrodBLuytenPHolmqvistR. Mentalizing in interpersonal psychotherapy. APT. (2019) 72:95–100. doi: 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20190021
65.
EkebladAFalkenströmFAnderssonGVestbergRHolmqvistR. Randomized trial of interpersonal psychotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy for major depressive disorder in a community-based psychiatric outpatient clinic. Depress Anxiety. (2016) 33:1090–8. doi: 10.1002/da.22495
66.
BjörgvinssonTHartJ. Cognitive behavioral therapy promotes mentalizing In: The handbook of mentalization-based treatment (2006). 157–70.
67.
DykierekP. Die Behandlung von Theory-of-Mind-Defiziten bei Depressionen im Alter. Psychotherapie im Alter. (2020) 17:461–75. doi: 10.30820/1613-2637-2020-4-461
68.
TaubnerSSchulzeCIKesslerHBuchheimAKächeleHStaunL. Veränderungen der mentalisierten Affektivität nach 24 Monaten analytischer Psychotherapie bei Patienten mit chronischer Depression. Psychotherapie Forum (2015) 20:20–28. doi: 10.1007/s00729-015-0032-9
69.
HalstensenKGjestadRLuytenPWampoldBGranqvistPStålsettGet al. Depression and mentalizing: a psychodynamic therapy process study. J Couns Psychol. (2021) 68:705–18. doi: 10.1037/cou0000544
70.
BressiCFronzaSMinacapelliENocitoEPDipasqualeEMagriLet al. Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy with Mentalization-based techniques in major depressive disorder patients: relationship among alexithymia, reflective functioning, and outcome variables – a pilot study. Psychol Psychother Theory Res Pract. (2017) 90:299–313. doi: 10.1111/papt.12110
71.
NegtPBrakemeierELMichalakJWinterLBleichSKahlKG. The treatment of chronic depression with cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled clinical trials. Brain Behav. (2016) 6:e00486. doi: 10.1002/brb3.486
72.
BatemanAFonagyP. Mentalization-based treatment. Psychoanal Inq. (2013) 33:595–613. doi: 10.1080/07351690.2013.835170
73.
JakobsenJCGluudCKongerslevMLarsenKASørensenPWinkelPet al. Third-wave cognitive therapy versus mentalisation-based treatment for major depressive disorder: a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open. (2014) 4:e004903. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004903
74.
ZhuSZhuKJiangDShiJ. Social cognition and interaction training for major depression: a preliminary study. Psychiatry Res. (2018) 270:890–4. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.11.008
75.
KleinJPBeckerBHurlemannRScheibeCCollaMHeuserI. Effect of specific psychotherapy for chronic depression on neural responses to emotional faces. J Affect Disord. (2014) 166:93–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.04.055
76.
MeyerKCatherineHAFiebigJStammTBassettTRBauerMet al. Boosting the ToM network: specific psychotherapy increases neural correlates of affective theory of mind in euthymic bipolar disorder. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. (2022) 8:572–80. doi: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2022.08.013
77.
MarwoodLWiseTPerkinsAMCleareAJ. Meta-analyses of the neural mechanisms and predictors of response to psychotherapy in depression and anxiety. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2018) 95:61–72. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.09.022
78.
NordCLBarrettLFLindquistKAMaYMarwoodLSatputeABet al. Neural effects of antidepressant medication and psychological treatments: a quantitative synthesis across three meta-analyses. Br J Psychiatry. (2021) 219:546–50. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2021.16
79.
RobertsCSahakianBJRobbinsTW. Psychological mechanisms and functions of 5-HT and SSRIs in potential therapeutic change: lessons from the serotonergic modulation of action selection, learning, affect, and social cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2020) 119:138–67. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.09.001
80.
TranterRBellDGuttingPHarmerCHealyDAndersonIM. The effect of serotonergic and noradrenergic antidepressants on face emotion processing in depressed patients. J Affect Disord. (2009) 118:87–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.01.028
81.
ShiromaPRThurasPJohnsBLimKO. Emotion recognition processing as early predictor of response to 8-week citalopram treatment in late-life depression. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. (2014) 29:1132–9. doi: 10.1002/gps.4104
82.
RiefWNestoriucYWeissSWelzelEBarskyAJHofmannSG. Meta-analysis of the placebo response in antidepressant trials. J Affect Disord. (2009) 118:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.01.029
83.
McQuaidRJMcInnisOAAbizaidAAnismanH. Making room for oxytocin in understanding depression. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2014) 45:305–22. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.07.005
84.
EngelSLauferSKnaevelsrudCSchumacherS. The endogenous oxytocin system in depressive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology. (2019) 101:138–49. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.11.011
85.
De CagnaFFusar-PoliLDamianiSRocchettiMGiovannaGMoriAet al. The role of intranasal oxytocin in anxiety and depressive disorders: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. (2019) 17:1–11. doi: 10.9758/cpn.2019.17.1.1
86.
HuangYHuangXEbsteinRPYuR. Intranasal oxytocin in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders: a multilevel meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2021) 122:18–27. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.12.028
87.
KeechBCroweSHockingDR. Intranasal oxytocin, social cognition and neurodevelopmental disorders: a meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology. (2018) 87:9–19. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.09.022
88.
LeppanenJNgKWTchanturiaKTreasureJ. Meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal oxytocin on interpretation and expression of emotions. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2017) 78:125–44. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.010
89.
GraceSARossellSLHeinrichsMKordsachiaCLabuschagneI. Oxytocin and brain activity in humans: a systematic review and coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional MRI studies. Psychoneuroendocrinology. (2018) 96:6–24. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.05.031
90.
SchmidYHysekCMSimmlerLDCrockettMJQuednowBBLiechtiME. Differential effects of MDMA and methylphenidate on social cognition. J Psychopharmacol. (2014) 28:847–56. doi: 10.1177/0269881114542454
91.
AduMKShalabyRChuePAgyapongVIO. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of resistant depression: a scoping review. Behav Sci. (2022) 12:195. doi: 10.3390/bs12060195
92.
Lev-RanSShamay-TsoorySGZangenALevkovitzY. Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex impairs theory of mind learning. Eur Psychiatry. (2012) 27:285–9. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.11.008
93.
BardiLSixPBrassM. Repetitive TMS of the temporo-parietal junction disrupts participant’s expectations in a spontaneous theory of mind task. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. (2017) 12:1775–82. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsx109
94.
WölwerWLoweABrinkmeyerJStreitMHabakuckMAgelinkMWet al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) improves facial affect recognition in schizophrenia. Brain Stimul. (2014) 7:559–63. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2014.04.011
95.
BerlimMTMcgirrABeaulieuMMTureckiG. Theory of mind in subjects with major depressive disorder: is it influenced by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation?World J Biol Psychiatry. (2012) 13:474–9. doi: 10.3109/15622975.2011.615861
96.
TongJZhangJJinYLiuWWangHHuangYet al. Impact of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on theory of mind and executive function in major depressive disorder and its correlation with brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF): a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Brain Sci. (2021) 11:765. doi: 10.3390/brainsci11060765
97.
CharltonRABarrickTRMarkusHSMorrisRG. Theory of mind associations with other cognitive functions and brain imaging in normal aging. Psychol Aging. (2009) 24:338–48. doi: 10.1037/a0015225
98.
HajdúkMKrajcovicovaDZimányiováMKorinkovaVHeretikAPeceankJ. Theory of mind-not emotion recognition-mediates the relationship between executive functions and social functioning in patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatr Danub. (2018) 30:292–8. doi: 10.24869/psyd.2018.292
99.
ZhangRLamCLMPengXZhangDZhangCHuangRet al. Efficacy and acceptability of transcranial direct current stimulation for treating depression: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2021) 126:481–90. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.03.026
100.
WoodhamRRimmerRMMutzJFuCHY. Is tDCS a potential first line treatment for major depression?Int Rev Psychiatry. (2021) 33:250–65. doi: 10.1080/09540261.2021.1879030
101.
SantiestebanIBanissyMJCatmurCBirdG. Enhancing social ability by stimulating right Temporoparietal junction. Curr Biol. (2012) 22:2274–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.10.018
102.
LangenbachBPSavicBBaumgartnerTWyssAMKnochD. Mentalizing with the future: electrical stimulation of the right TPJ increases sustainable decision-making. Cortex. (2022) 146:227–37. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2021.11.006
103.
ZemestaniMHoseinpanahiOSalehinejadMANitscheMA. The impact of prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on theory of mind, emotion regulation and emotional-behavioral functions in children with autism disorder: a randomized, sham-controlled, and parallel-group study. Autism Res. (2022) 15:1985–2003. doi: 10.1002/aur.2803
104.
KoelkebeckKUwatokoTTanakaJKretME. How culture shapes social cognition deficits in mental disorders: a review. Soc Neurosci. (2017) 12:102–12. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2016.1155482
Summary
Keywords
depression, mentalising, social neuroscience, theory of mind, psychotherapy, TMS, pharmacotherapy
Citation
Langenbach BP, Koelkebeck K and Knoch D (2023) Mentalising and depression: a mini-review on behavior, neural substrates, and treatment options. Front. Psychiatry 14:1116306. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1116306
Received
05 December 2022
Accepted
24 May 2023
Published
15 June 2023
Volume
14 - 2023
Edited by
Grit Hein, Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg, Germany
Reviewed by
Anna-Lisa Schuler, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Germany
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Langenbach, Koelkebeck and Knoch.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Benedikt P. Langenbach, benedikt.langenbach@uni-due.deDaria Knoch, daria.knoch@unibe.ch
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.