Abstract
Accumulating evidence from animal and human studies suggests a fear-regulating potential of the neuropeptide oxytocin (OT), yet the clinical translation into novel interventions for pathological fear requires a behavioral and neurofunctional characterization under close-to-real life conditions. Here, we combined a naturalistic fMRI-design inducing high and immersive fear experience in social and non-social contexts with a preregistered between-subjects randomized double-blind placebo-controlled intranasal OT trial (24 IU, n = 67 healthy men). OT reduced subjective fear in non-social and social contexts with small or moderate effect sizes, respectively. In the social fear contexts, OT enhanced left middle cingulate cortex (lMCC) activation and its functional connectivity with the contralateral amygdala, with both neural indices significantly and inversely associated with subjective fear following OT. On the network level, OT enhanced communication between the dorsal attention network (DAN) with the fronto-parietal (FPN) and the default-mode network (DMN) as well as on the more fine-grained level brain-wide communication. These findings indicate a fear-reducing potential of OT under naturalistic conditions with pronounced effects in social contexts, suggesting a high treatment value in disorders with social context-related excessive fear.
Introduction
Fear is an evolutionarily conserved and highly adaptive defensive avoidance response, fundamental to surviving and functioning in everyday life 1–4. The experience of excessive and overwhelming fear represents a hallmark symptom of anxiety and trauma-related disorders 5–7. These highly prevalent psychiatric disorders have become a leading cause of disability and are accompanied by personal suffering as well as an enormous socio-economic burden. The conventional pharmacological interventions targeting the classical neurotransmitter (GABA-ergic, serotonergic) systems 7–9 are characterized by moderate response rates and potential negative side effects ranging from dizziness towards addiction. While several promising candidate compounds have shown effects in animal models, no new pharmacological treatment for fear or anxiety has entered the clinical practice during the last decades (for recent non-pharmacological developments see e.g. 10, 11).
Based on promising findings in animal models and preclinical human studies neuropeptides, including oxytocin (OT), vasopressin or angiotensin II, have been suggested as promising new strategies to regulate fear and anxiety 12–16. Most previous research in this field has focused on OT, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, and animal models 15, 16 as well as preclinical human proof-of-concept studies demonstrated promising effects of OT on regulating negative emotional processing in the domains of fear and anxiety 16–20. Some of the effects of OT appear to be specific to social contexts and stimuli, yet in the context of contradictory empirical evidence, debates on the social-specific effects of OT continue 21, 22.
OT neurons from the hypothalamus project to a wide range of brain regions involved in fear, anxiety as well as social processes, including the amygdala, hippocampus, midbrain and frontal lobe 5, 23, and previous studies indicate that intranasal OT can regulate these processes via influencing activity in the amygdala, dorsal anterior cingulate gyrus and medial prefrontal lobe 7, 18–20, 24–26. However, despite the initially promising findings from these studies, the fear and anxiety-reducing effects of OT and the underlying neural circuits have been determined under laboratory experimental contexts that strongly differ from the dynamic contexts during which fear arises in everyday life 27. Specifically, these studies combined the intranasal administration of OT with sparsely presented static experimental stimuli (e.g. pictures of fearful faces or scenes) and primarily focused on treatment-induced changes in brain regional activity during fMRI.
This approach stands in contrast to contemporary neuroscience models proposing that fear emerges in interaction between subjective appraisal and dynamic changes in the environment 28, 29 and that the corresponding mental states are mediated by an intricate interplay among distributed yet interacting brain systems 30–32. To account for the complexity of subjective affective experiences under ecologically valid conditions and to capture the underlying network-level communication in the brain, recent overarching conceptualizations have proposed the combination of movie stimuli as highly immersive and dynamic stimuli with network-level analyses 33, 34. Initial empirical studies confirmed that these stimuli can induce highly immersive affective experiences in complex social situations 35, 36 as well as the essential role that network-level communication plays in establishing affective and social experiences under naturalistic contexts 27, 34, 37, 38.
Mental disorders, including fear-related disorders, have been reconceptualized as network-level disorders that are characterized by dysregulated regional activity as well as network level connectivity (putatively reflecting communication between brain regions) 32, 39, 40. Together with a growing number of studies underscoring the potential of OT to regulate neurofunctional network-level interactions in fear-related networks across species 41–44, which may be partly explained by the physiological properties of the oxytocin-signaling system, including an axonal release, widespread receptor distribution and considerably longer half-life compared to classical neurotransmitters 45, these findings indicate the necessity to account for network-level effects to fully determine a regulatory effect of OT on fear experience and its therapeutic potential.
Against this background, the present pre-registered between-subjects randomized double-blind placebo-controlled pharmaco-fMRI study (n = 67 healthy male participants) capitalized on recent progress in naturalistic fMRI and network-level analyses to determine whether a single dosage of intranasal OT (1) reduces the subjective experience of fear under highly immersive and ecologically valid conditions, (2) modulates concomitant regional activity in brain systems identified in previous studies, (3) modulates brain communication of the identified regions and on the whole-brain network level, and (4) effects vary as a function of social context. Based on previous studies 7, 18–20 we hypothesized that intranasal OT would decrease subjective fear in naturalistic contexts with more pronounced effects in the social domain while concomitantly enhancing neural activity in regulatory brain regions and inhibiting activity in fear-processing brain regions. On the network level, we expected that OT would enhance communication between emotion-regulation brain regions and the amygdala as well as communication between large-scale networks with pronounced effects in the social fear context.
Methods
Participants
Sixty-nine right-handed male participants with normal or corrected-normal vision were recruited from the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China. The sample size was determined using G*Power v.3.1 46, 47 indicating that 62 participants were required to detect a significant effect on the behavioral level (f = 0.25, α = 0.05, β = 0.80, 2 × 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA interaction effect). The present study focused on male subjects to reduce variance related to sex differences in the effects of OT 48, 49 and adhered to validated exclusion criteria (details see supplementary methods). The final sample size was n = 67 (mean ± SD, age = 21.03 ± 1.95 years) due to two data from two participants being excluded (withdraw due to personal reasons, technical MRI issues). All participants provided written informed consent, protocols were pre-registered on Clinical Trials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT05892939), approved by the ethics committee at the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (UESTC-1061423041725893) and in line with the latest Declaration of Helsinki.
Using a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled, between-subject pharmacological fMRI design, participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single intranasal dose of oxytocin (OT, 24IU-Sichuan Defeng Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, China) or a placebo (PLC, same ingredients i.e. sodium chloride and glycerin but without the peptide). The spray bottles were identical and dispensed by an independent researcher based on a computer-generated randomization sequence to ensure double-blinding. The investigators involved in data acquisition and analyses were blinded for group allocation. Following recent recommendations 50–52, the fMRI assessment began 45 minutes after treatment administration.
To control for pre-treatment between-group differences, participants completed a series of mood and mental health questionnaires (as detailed in Table 1). Participants were asked to guess which treatment they had received after the experiment (with a non-significant treatment guess χ2 = 0.39, p = 0.53, confirming successful double-blinding). Additionally, participants were required to complete a surprise recognition task after the experiment that involved presenting stills of the video clips shown during fMRI and new clips to test the attentive processing of the stimuli. All participants achieved a re-recognition accuracy of over 75% and no significant difference in performance was observed between the two treatment groups (t(1,65) = -0.693, p = 0.491).
Naturalistic fear induction paradigm
The task began 45 minutes after the treatment intervention (see Fig. 1a). During the naturalistic fear induction paradigm, participants were instructed to watch a series of video clips attentively and rate their level of fear experience after each clip. The clips lasted 25 seconds and were followed by a 1-3 second jittered fixation cross to separate the stimuli from the rating period. During the 5-second period following each stimulus, participants were asked to report their level of subjective fear on a 9-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating no fear and 9 indicating very strong fear. This was followed by a jittered inter-trial interval of 9-11 seconds, during which a fixation cross was presented (see Fig. 1b). A total of 32 short video clips were presented over 2 runs, with each run consisting of 16 randomly presented clips, half of which were neutral and half of which were fear-inducing clips.
Given ongoing discussions about the social-specific effects of OT 53, 54, we carefully pre-selected a balanced set of stimuli that included social as well as non-social fearful or neutral stimuli, respectively. This led to a set of four stimulus categories (fear social clips-FS, fear non-social clips-FNS, neutral social clips-NS, neutral non-social clips-NNS, see Fig. 1c). For detailed characterization of the video clips, see Supplementary Methods. The video clips used for the naturalistic fear induction paradigm were selected from a larger database based on stimuli evaluation ratings in an independent sample (n = 20; 10 females; age = 22.65 ± 2.01). Key exclusion criteria for the video clips were reported in supplementary methods. Based on the results of the behavioral ratings (see Fig. S2), 8 complimentary video clips were selected for each of the four categories. The task was programmed in Python 3.7 using the PsychoPy package (version 2022.2.4).
Effects of OT on subjective fear experience
To determine the effects of OT on subjective fear in naturalistic contexts and whether they vary as a function of social context, we computed a repeated measures ANOVA with the between-subject factor treatment (OT vs PLC) and the within-subject factors emotion (fear vs neutral) and social (social vs non-social) and the dependent variable fear ratings during fMRI. To initially ensure that the selected video clips were effective in inducing the intended emotions, repeated measures ANOVA (sex was used as the independent variable, while emotion and social were used as repeated variables) were conducted on five rating metrics (see supplementary methods). Analyses were conducted using GraphPad Prism 9.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA), and corresponding effect sizes were computed using JASP 0.18.3.0 (JASP Team, 2019; jasp-stats.org). All ANOVAs and t-tests used false discovery rate (FDR) 55 recommended by Prism for multiple comparison correction.
MRI data acquisition and preprocessing
MRI data were collected on a 3.0-T GE Discovery MR750 system (General Electric Medical System, Milwaukee, WI, USA) and preprocessed using FMRIPREP 21.0.056 (RRID: SCR_016216), a Nipype 1.6.1 based tool that integrates preprocessing routines from different software packages and SPM 12 (Statistical Parametric Mapping; http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/; Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, detailed in supplementary methods).
Next, a voxel-wise general linear model (GLM) was conducted for each participant. Specifically, a first-level model was designed that included separate regressors for the four conditions and the rating period. In line with a previous study 28, we removed variance associated with the mean, linear and quadratic trends, the average signal within anatomically-derived CSF mask, the effects of motion estimated during the head-motion correction using an expanded set of 24 motion parameters (six realignment parameters, their squares, their derivatives, and their squared derivatives) and motion spikes (FMRIPREP default: FD > 0.5mm or standardized DVARS > 1.5)57.
Effects of OT on fear-related brain activity
To examine the effects of OT on fear-related neural activity in naturalistic contexts, a GLM-based model was established in SPM 12. The model incorporated five regressors: FS, FNS, NS, NNS, and the rating period. We included the 24 head motion parameters as covariates of no interest. Key first-level contrasts of interest were contrasts that modeled fear in social and non-social contexts separately (i.e., [FS − NS] or [FNS − NNS]) as well as their interaction (i.e., [FS − NS] − [FNS − NNS]). In line with the behavioral analyses, the effects of OT were determined using an ANOVA with the factors emotion and social context, implemented in a partitioned error ANOVA approach that subjected the first level interaction contrast to a voxel-wise two-sample t-test with the factor treatment group on the second level. Based on our hypothesis and previous studies reporting that fear is strongly associated with amygdala, cingulate cortex (particularly middle cingulate cortex, MCC), insula, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and that oxytocin mediates its anxiolytic effects via these regions 14, 22, 27, 58–60, our analyses focused on atlas-derived bilateral masks for the amygdala, MCC, insula and vmPFC using separate small volume correction (SVC) and family-wise error (FWE) correction 61 applied at peak level.
To further disentangle complex interaction effects involving treatment, parameter estimates were extracted using 8mm radius spheres centered at the peak interaction coordinates using Marsbar (http://marsbar.sourceforge.net/). The extracted Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent (BOLD) signals were then subjected to appropriate post-hoc tests comparing group differences in each of the separate conditions.
Additionally, to determine associations between the behavioral (subjective fear) and neural effects of OT (both activation and functional connectivity between specific brain regions) we conducted correlation analysis using JASP.
Effects of OT on functional communication of the regions identified
We further examined whether the regions showing altered regional activation following OT also changed their network-level communication via a general Psychophysiological interaction (gPPI) analysis. gPPI examines functional connectivity between brain regions that is contingent on a psychological context. We used the Generalized PPI toolbox 62 as implemented in SPM 12, to conduct gPPI. This method includes additional task regressors to reduce the likelihood that the functional connectivity estimates are driven simply by co-activation and has been widely used in similar studies 63, 64. Based on our results, OT enhanced activation in the left middle cingulate cortex (lMCC) under the three-way interaction (treatment × emotion × social), we therefore computed the functional communication of this region (using an 8mm radius which centered in peak Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI), x, y, z = -7, -3, 30) with other voxels in the whole brain under the two-way interaction of emotion and social, and a two-sample t-test was conducted to confirm the treatment effect of OT. Based on previous studies reporting effects of OT on the functional communication of the amygdala 48, 49, separate atlas-derived bilateral masks for the amygdala, MCC, insula and vmPFC were used for SVC analyses with FWE correction 61 applied at peak level.
Marsbar was used to extract information communications between other regions and the seed region to further disentangle complex interaction effects involving treatment. The extracted functional connectivity signals were then subjected to compare the treatment effect under four conditions by using two-sample t-tests separately.
Effects of OT on large-scale brain network functional connectivity
Given that several studies reported the effects of OT on large-scale network organization of the brain 65, 66, we examined OT effects on the whole-brain network level. To this end, time-series of each region of interest (ROI) was extracted according to the template including 463 ROIs across the whole brain (see supplementary methods), resulting in BOLD time series of the size of r × t (r was the number of ROIs and t was the BOLD time series length) for each subject per run. A matrix of size r × r was obtained by calculating Pearson’s correlation between the average BOLD time series of each pair of ROIs. Additionally, Fisher’s z-transform was applied to improve the normality of the correlation coefficients. The brain regions can be divided into nine networks based on their functional divisions, and the neural activities of each network’s regions were averaged to calculate network functional connectivity.
During each run, four types of video clips were presented in a pseudo-randomized order. The onset time of each video clip was shifted by 3 TRs to account for hemodynamic lag. To extract neural activity time series for a specific condition, we used the time points and durations specified for the appearance of different trials of the same type. This resulted in four r × d matrices (where r is the number of ROIs and d is the BOLD time series length of each condition). Additionally, we obtained the r × r matrix between ROIs and the n × n matrix (where n is the number of networks) between brain networks for different conditions.
After performing Fisher-Z transformation on the network functional connectivity matrices for different conditions, matrices of Z-values corresponding to specific conditions (ZFS\ZFNS\ZNS\ZFNS) are obtained. It is important to note that r values are not additive or subtractive, but Z scores are summative. Matrix of Z-values corresponding to particular contrasts (e.g. ZFS-NS) can be computed by subtract the matrices of Z-values corresponding to different conditions (e.g. ZFS-ZNS)67, 68. Therefore, each participant in both groups would have their own subtracted Z-values matrix under specific contrasts (ZFS-NS\ZFNS-NNS). We then conducted two-sample t-tests on each pair of network-level functional connectivity to determine the treatment effect.
Effects of OT on whole-brain functional connectivity
To further investigate the impact of OT on a finer spatial scale, we analyzed whole-brain functional connectivity using paired t-tests for key contrasts (FS − NNS and FNS − NNS) separately for the two groups. We applied FDR correction (pFDR-corrected < 0.05) to identify the most relevant functional connections for each contrast. A Mantel test 69, 70 was performed on the FDR-corrected functional connectivity matrices of the two groups, under specific contrasts, to assess their similarity. Furthermore, to investigate treatment-specific effects on functional connectivity strength at the whole-brain level, we transformed the upper triangular data of the t-value matrices of the two groups under specific contrast into two (r × (r − 1)) / 2 by 1 feature vectors, and performed Welch’s t-test between them.
Results
Demographics and potential confounders
The OT (n = 33) and PLC (n = 34) groups were comparable with respect to socio-demographics, mood and mental health indices arguing against nonspecific treatment effects (Table 1, all ps > 0.10).
OT reduced subjective fear experience in naturalistic contexts, particularly in social contexts
The ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of emotion (F(1,65) = 1434, p < 0.0001,ηp2 = 0.957, Fig. 2a) such that participants rated subjective fear considerably higher during fear trials (FS and FNS) than neutral ones, and a significant main effect of social (F(1,65) = 76.81, p < 0.0001, ηp2 = 0.542, Fig. 2a) reflecting lower fear during social trials (FS and NS) compared with non-social trials. With respect to the effects of OT we found a significant interaction effect between treatment and emotion (F(3,65) = 4.064, p = 0.048,ηp2 = 0.059, Fig. 2a), with post hoc tests indicating that OT significantly decreased fear experience in response to fearful stimuli in naturalistic social contexts while the effects sizes indicated a stronger fear reduction in social contexts (t(1,65) = -3.038, p = 0.0027, Cohen’s d = -0.742 under FS while t(1,65) = -1.991, p = 0.048, Cohen’s d = -0.487 under FNS, Fig. 2b). Finally, the interaction between emotion and social was significant (F(3,65) = 53.15, p < 0.0001,ηp2 = 0.45, Fig. 2a) reflecting that participants reported generally lower fear experience in social fear contexts. The main effect of treatment and other interactions were not significant. Together the results partly support that OT can reduce subjective fear in naturalistic situations and that the effects are more pronounced in social fear contexts.
OT enhanced middle cingulate activation in the social fear contexts
We initially examined brain regions participating in fear processing under naturalistic contexts with different social features compared with neutral control conditions, a series of corresponding voxel-wise one-sample t-tests conducted in the PLC group confirmed previous studies, suggesting that visual and temporal regions were strongly engaged during exposure to dynamic fear movie clips irrespective of social features (Fig. S3). Examining treatment effects revealed a significant interaction between treatment × emotion × social located in the left middle cingulate cortex (peak MNI, x, y, z = -7, -3, 30, t(1,65) = 3.67, k = 33, pFWE-peak(svc) = 0.019, Fig. 2c), with post-hoc t-tests on extracted activity measures from this region indicating that compared to PLC, OT selectively enhanced activation in this region for FS (t(1,65) = 2.761, p = 0.007, Cohen’s d = 0.675, Fig. 2d) but not other conditions (all ps > 0.05, Fig. 2d). Examining associations between lMCC activation (extracted parameter estimates) and subjective fear experience revealed a significant negative association in the OT (r = -0.418, p = 0.016, Fig. 2e) but not in PLC group (r = 0.090, p = 0.611, Fig. 2e). A Fisher r-z transformation indicated that these correlation coefficients were significantly different between the OT and PLC groups (Z = -2.09, two-tailed p = 0.037).
OT enhanced MCC-amygdala functional communication consistently in the social fear contexts
Examining OT effects on the functional communication of the lMCC revealed a significant interaction effect between treatment × emotion × social located in the right amygdala (rAmy) (peak MNI, x, y, z = 22, -7, 13, t(1,65) = 3.81, k = 19, pFWE-peak(svc) = 0.021, Fig. 3a), with post-hoc t-tests indicating that OT relative to PLC selectively enhanced lMCC-rAmy coupling in social fear contexts (t(1,65) = 2.70, p = 0.009, Cohen’s d = 0.66, Fig. 3b) but not other contexts (all ps > 0.05, FDR-corrected, Fig. 3b), confirming social fear-specific effects of OT on the neural level. In addition, we found that lMCC-rAmy functional coupling was significantly negatively associated with subjective fear experience in the OT (r = -0.392, p = 0.024, Fig. 3c) but not PLC group (r = - 0.084, p = 0.638, Fig. 3c, Fisher r-to-z transformation revealed a trend-to-significant difference between the treatment groups, Z = -1.29, one-tailed p = 0.099).
OT enhanced FPN-DAN and DMN-DAN coupling during social fear contexts
Examining the effects of OT on the large-scale network level using separate two-sample t-tests on the matrices of z-values for the two main contrasts of interest (FS − NS, FNS − NNS) and following mantel test revealed that OT significantly affected network functional connectivity differently under two contexts (rhomantel test = -0.1333, p > 0.05). Specifically, compared to PLC (all ps > 0.05, Fig. 4f), OT significantly enhanced the functional communication between FPN and DAN (t(1,65) = 2.75, p = 0.0077, Cohen’s d = 0.672, Fig. 4e) as well as between DMN and DAN (t(1,65) = 2.02, p = 0.048, Cohen’s d = 0.493, Fig. 4e) under the social fear but not the non-social fear contexts.
OT modulated whole-brain functional connectivity in the social fear context
We further conducted exploratory analyses to examine whether OT changes brain-wide communications. Results showed that while under PLC only few positive connections increased activity during the FS versus NS contrast (Fig. 5a), OT induced a more widespread connectivity between several brain regions (Fig. 5b). Under the FNS versus NNS contrast, the PLC group exhibited wide-spread connectivity (Fig. 5c), with no obvious changes following OT (Fig. 5d). Further Mantel tests and Welch’s t-test were conducted on the t-value matrices (FS − NS and FNS − NNS) between both groups showed significant modulating effects of OT under both contrasts (rhomantel test = 0.0335, t(1,65) = 9.05, p < 0.0001 under FS − NS, rhomantel test = 0.208, t(1,65) = -2.51, p = 0.012 under FNS − NNS), particularly under the fear social contexts.
Discussion
The present study determined the acute behavioral and neural effects of a single intranasal OT administration on subjective fear experience in a naturalistic context that resembles dynamic fear processing in social and non-social contexts in a close-to-real life setting. On the behavioral level, OT decreased the experience of subjective fear across social and non-social contexts, supporting a fear-regulating potential of OT under dynamic and ecologically valid conditions. Mirroring the stronger effect sizes of the OT-induced fear reduction in social contexts, neural effects of OT were primarily observed in social fear contexts, such that OT enhanced regional activation in the left MCC and its communication with the contralateral amygdala specifically during fear in social contexts with both neural indices exhibiting a negative association with subjective fear following OT but not PLC. Exploratory network-level analyses further revealed that OT significantly enhanced the functional connectivity between the DAN and the FPN/DMN, respectively, and brain-wide communication selectively in social fear contexts. Together, the findings indicate that a single dose of intranasal OT has the potential to decrease fear in close-to-real life settings by enhancing lMCC activation and its communication with the amygdala while concomitantly affecting network-level communication of the DAN with brain networks involved in regulatory control (FPN 71, 72) and social processing (DMN 73, 74) as well as brain-wide functional communication.
Several previous studies in rodents and humans suggested a fear- and anxiety-reducing potential of OT, however, results remained inconsistent. Studies have described a promising fear- and anxiety-reducing neurofunctional profile of OT across species, yet the neural effects on amygdala-related circuits were often observed in the absence of changes in subjective fear experience or under experimental laboratory settings with limited ecological validity 15, 17–20, 75.
In the context of increasing attempts to enhance the ecological validity of neuroimaging research using dynamic movie stimuli 27, 28, 76, we here combined naturalistic fMRI employing fear-inducing movie clips with a pre-registered randomized double-blind placebo-controlled OT-administration trial. Across pilot experiments and treatment studies, the procedure induced a highly immersive and comparably strong experience of fear under close-to-real life conditions. Importantly, OT decreased subjective fear experience in the more naturalistic context with small or moderate effect sizes in the non-social or social context, respectively. Although the pronounced fear-reducing effects of OT in the social context may partly reflect the generally more moderate fear experience reported by our participants in this context, pronounced effects of OT in social contexts have been conceptualized in a number of overarching theories and have been reported in several previous studies 21, 22, 77 including studies reporting decreased subjective anxiety 78. The latter hypothesis on the social-specific effects of OT is also mirrored in the brain functional findings, such that the neurofunctional effects were selectively observed during fear experiences in social contexts.
With respect to regional activation, OT increased the activation of the left middle cingulate cortex (lMCC). The MCC represents a highly integrative hub that has been involved in both, fear evaluation 5, 60, 79, 80 as well as the cognitive control of negative affective states including fear 81, 82. Concomitantly, OT enhanced functional connectivity from the lMCC to the contralateral amygdala (rAmy), a pathway that has been previously involved in implementing top-down inhibitory control over excessive fear-related amygdala engagement 60, 80, 83. Effects of OT on this circuitry have been previously reported in the context of reduced subjective anxiety in individuals with PTSD 84 and in response to static fearful faces in patients with generalized social anxiety disorders 25. Exploring brain-behavior associations further revealed that OT established a negative association between higher activity and connectivity in this circuit and subjective fear, underscoring the behavioral relevance of the OT-induced neurofunctional changes. Together, our findings suggest that OT exerts its fear-regulating effects under naturalistic contexts via enhancing MCC engagement and control over the amygdala.
On the large-scale network level, OT significantly enhanced the functional connectivity of the DAN with the FPN as well as the DMN in the social fear contexts. The DAN is centered around the intraparietal sulcus and the frontal eye fields and plays a pivotal role in top-down or goal-directed control of attention 85–87, while the FPN supports goal-directed actions and cognitive control 71, 88, 89 and the DMN supports self-referential 90, 91 and social processing 73, 74, with more recent findings additionally suggesting a role in emotional experience in dynamic naturalistic contexts 92, 93. While studies have demonstrated the effects of OT on the interaction between these large-scale networks during the task-free state 65, 94, the present findings underscore the behavioral relevance of these effects of OT in terms of regulating emotional processes in social contexts. Together with previous studies suggesting an association between dysfunctional interaction between these large-scale networks and emotional dysregulations in anxiety and fear-related disorders 32, 91, the present findings support a potential therapeutic potential of OT for these disorders 32, 95, 96.
Network-level analyses that explored the effects of OT on the fine-grained level of brain-wide connectivity patterns suggested that OT may broadly facilitate brain-wide exchange of information within and across networks particularly between the FPN and DMN in social fear contexts. The results align with recent findings suggesting that emotional processes such as fear and anxiety are processed in distributed networks and their interactions 27, 34, 97 as well as the distributed network-level properties and effects of the OT signaling system 41, 98, 99. These findings underscore that OT may exert its effects on human emotion processing under complex naturalistic conditions via regulating extensive network-level interactions. Together with increasing the reconceptualization and increasing evidence indicating that mental disorders are not related to dysfunctions of a single brain region or pathway but rather dysregulated brain-wide communication 32, 91, 100, these findings may further underscore the therapeutic potential of the OT signaling system.
Findings have to be considered in the context of limitations of the present design, including (1) to avoid variations in the effects of OT related to sex 48, 49, we only focused on male participants and future studies need to test generalization to females, (2) the study employed a proof-of-concept design in healthy subjects and future studies need to validate the effects of OT in populations with pathological fear and anxiety, (3) despite extensive pre-study testing the videos of the social and non-social category differed in terms of the level of fear induced which partly limits conclusions regarding social-specific effects of OT, (4) the videos included homogenous brief episodes of fear and future studies need to examine effects of OT on fear during longer time scales and longer episodes with dynamic fear 27, 28.
Taken together, this study demonstrated that OT can reduce subjective fear experience under naturalistic conditions via enhancing lMCC engagement and its regulatory control over the amygdala as well as enhancing communication between large-scale networks and brain-wide communication. These findings consistently indicate a high translational therapeutic potential of OT to regulate fear in dynamic and close-to-real life environments. Effects were pronounced or restricted to the social contexts, supporting the role that OT may play in social contexts, and rendering OT as a promising treatment for social context-specific fear experiences, e.g. in social anxiety disorders. Findings indicate that OT may be used as a novel therapeutic strategy to regulate excessive subjective fear symptoms in mental disorders 7, 17, 24 or may help to prevent the development of these disorders during early stages or promote long-term recovery 94 via improving the quality of life, and reduce the social and economic burden related to fear-related disorders.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author
Author contributions
KF and BB1 designed the study. KF, ZZ and DL conducted the experiment and collected the data. KF, SX, WZ, ZL performed the data analysis with the help of TX, YZ, XZ, CL, JW, LW, JH and BB2. KF and BB1 wrote the manuscript. SX, FZ, KK, TX, YZ, ZL and WZ critically revised the manuscript draft.
Note: BB1, Benjamin Becker; BB2, Bharat Biswal.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the China MOST2030 Brain Project (Grant No. 2022ZD0208500), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 32250610208, 82271583-BB), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2018YFA0701400-BB), the Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province (Grant number 2022NSFSC1375-WZ) and a start-up grant from The University of Hong Kong. Disclaimer: Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication do not reflect the views of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or the Innovation and Technology Commission.
Footnotes
↵10 Lead contact
References
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.
- 4.↵
- 5.↵
- 6.
- 7.↵
- 8.
- 9.↵
- 10.↵
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.
- 14.↵
- 15.↵
- 16.↵
- 17.↵
- 18.↵
- 19.
- 20.↵
- 21.↵
- 22.↵
- 23.↵
- 24.↵
- 25.↵
- 26.↵
- 27.↵
- 28.↵
- 29.↵
- 30.↵
- 31.
- 32.↵
- 33.↵
- 34.↵
- 35.↵
- 36.↵
- 37.↵
- 38.↵
- 39.↵
- 40.↵
- 41.↵
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.↵
- 45.↵
- 46.↵
- 47.↵
- 48.↵
- 49.↵
- 50.↵
- 51.
- 52.↵
- 53.↵
- 54.↵
- 55.↵
- 56.↵
- 57.↵
- 58.↵
- 59.
- 60.↵
- 61.↵
- 62.↵
- 63.↵
- 64.↵
- 65.↵
- 66.↵
- 67.↵
- 68.↵
- 69.↵
- 70.↵
- 71.↵
- 72.↵
- 73.↵
- 74.↵
- 75.↵
- 76.↵
- 77.↵
- 78.↵
- 79.↵
- 80.↵
- 81.↵
- 82.↵
- 83.↵
- 84.↵
- 85.↵
- 86.
- 87.↵
- 88.↵
- 89.↵
- 90.↵
- 91.↵
- 92.↵
- 93.↵
- 94.↵
- 95.↵
- 96.↵
- 97.↵
- 98.↵
- 99.↵
- 100.↵