Facial emotion labeling in unaffected offspring of adults with bipolar I disorder.

BACKGROUND: Young people 'at risk' for developing Bipolar Disorder have been shown to have deficits in facial emotion labeling across emotions with some studies reporting deficits for one or more particular emotions. However, these have included a heterogeneous group of young people (siblings of adolescents and offspring of adults with bipolar disorder), who have themselves diagnosed psychopathology (mood disorders and neurodevelopmental disorders including ADHD). METHODS: 24 offspring of adults with bipolar I disorder and 34 offspring of healthy controls were administered the Diagnostic Analysis of Non Verbal Accuracy 2 (DANVA 2) to investigate the ability of participants to correctly label 4 emotions: happy, sad, fear and anger using both child and adult faces as stimuli at low and high intensity. RESULTS: Mixed effects modelling revealed that the offspring of adults with bipolar I disorder made more errors in both the overall recognition of facial emotions and the specific recognition of fear compared with the offspring of healthy controls. Further more errors were made by offspring that were male, younger in age and also in recognition of emotions using 'child' stimuli. LIMITATIONS: The sample size, lack of blinding of the study team and the absence of any stimuli that assess subjects' response to a neutral emotional stimulus are limitations of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Offspring (with no history of current or past psychopathology or psychotropic medication) of adults with bipolar I disorder displayed facial emotion labeling deficits (particularly fear) suggesting facial emotion labeling may be an endophenotype for bipolar disorder.

Family environment of bipolar families: a UK study.

BACKGROUND: Aspects of family environment (FE) such as family support, organisational structure and levels of conflict can increase risk of Bipolar Disorder (BD) in offspring of BD parents. METHODS: The family environment of 16 BD and 23 healthy control (HC) families was assessed using the Family Environment Scale (FES). Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was used to determine the degree of variation in scores on the FES dimensions within each family and a Generalised Linear Modelling (GLM) approach was used to investigate the extent to which scores on the different FES dimensions differed between families. RESULTS: On the FES, BD families experienced an environment with higher levels of conflict and lower levels of expressiveness, organisation, intellectual-cultural orientation and active-recreational orientation than healthy control families. Differences in FES scores were driven by presence of parental BD and total number of children in the family. However, socio-economic status (SES) was not found to have an effect in this study. LIMITATIONS: As an American instrument the FES may not have been sensitive enough to the cultural context of a UK sample. The relatively small sample size used may have limited the statistical power of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Greater numbers of children have the same effect on levels of conflict as the presence of BD, while SES does not appear to be as important a factor in FE as previously thought. Our results suggest that family based interventions focusing on psychoeducation and improved communication within these families may address issues of conflict, organisation and expressiveness.