Using Computational Phenotyping to Identify Divergent Strategies for Effort Allocation Across the Psychosis Spectrum.

IF 5.3 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Schizophrenia Bulletin Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.1093/schbul/sbae024
Alexis E Whitton, Jessica A Cooper, Jaisal T Merchant, Michael T Treadway, Kathryn E Lewandowski
{"title":"Using Computational Phenotyping to Identify Divergent Strategies for Effort Allocation Across the Psychosis Spectrum.","authors":"Alexis E Whitton, Jessica A Cooper, Jaisal T Merchant, Michael T Treadway, Kathryn E Lewandowski","doi":"10.1093/schbul/sbae024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and hypothesis: </strong>Disturbances in effort-cost decision-making have been highlighted as a potential transdiagnostic process underpinning negative symptoms in individuals with schizophrenia. However, recent studies using computational phenotyping show that individuals employ a range of strategies to allocate effort, and use of different strategies is associated with unique clinical and cognitive characteristics. Building on prior work in schizophrenia, this study evaluated whether effort allocation strategies differed in individuals with distinct psychotic disorders.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We applied computational modeling to effort-cost decision-making data obtained from individuals with psychotic disorders (n = 190) who performed the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task. The sample included 91 individuals with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder, 90 individuals with psychotic bipolar disorder, and 52 controls.</p><p><strong>Study results: </strong>Different effort allocation strategies were observed both across and within different disorders. Relative to individuals with psychotic bipolar disorder, a greater proportion of individuals with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder did not use reward value or probability information to guide effort allocation. Furthermore, across disorders, different effort allocation strategies were associated with specific clinical and cognitive features. Those who did not use reward value or probability information to guide effort allocation had more severe positive and negative symptoms, and poorer cognitive and community functioning. In contrast, those who only used reward value information showed a trend toward more severe positive symptoms.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings indicate that similar deficits in effort-cost decision-making may arise from different computational mechanisms across the psychosis spectrum.</p>","PeriodicalId":21530,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"1127-1136"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11348999/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbae024","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and hypothesis: Disturbances in effort-cost decision-making have been highlighted as a potential transdiagnostic process underpinning negative symptoms in individuals with schizophrenia. However, recent studies using computational phenotyping show that individuals employ a range of strategies to allocate effort, and use of different strategies is associated with unique clinical and cognitive characteristics. Building on prior work in schizophrenia, this study evaluated whether effort allocation strategies differed in individuals with distinct psychotic disorders.

Study design: We applied computational modeling to effort-cost decision-making data obtained from individuals with psychotic disorders (n = 190) who performed the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task. The sample included 91 individuals with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder, 90 individuals with psychotic bipolar disorder, and 52 controls.

Study results: Different effort allocation strategies were observed both across and within different disorders. Relative to individuals with psychotic bipolar disorder, a greater proportion of individuals with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder did not use reward value or probability information to guide effort allocation. Furthermore, across disorders, different effort allocation strategies were associated with specific clinical and cognitive features. Those who did not use reward value or probability information to guide effort allocation had more severe positive and negative symptoms, and poorer cognitive and community functioning. In contrast, those who only used reward value information showed a trend toward more severe positive symptoms.

Conclusions: These findings indicate that similar deficits in effort-cost decision-making may arise from different computational mechanisms across the psychosis spectrum.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用计算表型鉴定整个精神病谱系中不同的努力分配策略。
背景与假设:努力-成本决策紊乱被认为是精神分裂症患者阴性症状的潜在跨诊断过程。然而,最近利用计算表型技术进行的研究表明,个体会采用一系列策略来分配努力,而不同策略的使用与独特的临床和认知特征有关。本研究以之前的精神分裂症研究为基础,评估了患有不同精神障碍的个体的努力分配策略是否存在差异:研究设计:我们对精神障碍患者(n = 190)在完成 "为获得奖励而付出努力 "任务时所获得的努力成本决策数据进行了计算建模。样本中包括 91 名精神分裂症/情感性精神障碍患者、90 名精神性双相情感障碍患者和 52 名对照组患者:研究结果:在不同的障碍和不同的障碍中都观察到了不同的努力分配策略。与双相情感障碍患者相比,精神分裂症/分裂情感障碍患者中有更大比例的人不使用奖赏价值或概率信息来指导努力分配。此外,在各种障碍中,不同的努力分配策略与特定的临床和认知特征有关。那些不使用奖赏值或概率信息来指导努力分配的患者有更严重的阳性和阴性症状,认知功能和社区功能也更差。相比之下,那些只使用奖赏价值信息的人则表现出更严重的阳性症状:这些研究结果表明,在不同的精神病谱系中,类似的努力-成本决策缺陷可能来自于不同的计算机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Schizophrenia Bulletin 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Schizophrenia Bulletin seeks to review recent developments and empirically based hypotheses regarding the etiology and treatment of schizophrenia. We view the field as broad and deep, and will publish new knowledge ranging from the molecular basis to social and cultural factors. We will give new emphasis to translational reports which simultaneously highlight basic neurobiological mechanisms and clinical manifestations. Some of the Bulletin content is invited as special features or manuscripts organized as a theme by special guest editors. Most pages of the Bulletin are devoted to unsolicited manuscripts of high quality that report original data or where we can provide a special venue for a major study or workshop report. Supplement issues are sometimes provided for manuscripts reporting from a recent conference.
期刊最新文献
”Short” Versus “Long” Duration of Untreated Psychosis in People with First-Episode Psychosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Baseline Status and Follow-Up Outcomes A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Contrast Sensitivity in Schizophrenia. Psychotic Experiences and Risk of Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Population Studies. The Therapeutic Relationship That Started My Recovery. Yoga-Based Group Intervention for Inpatients with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders-Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Outcomes of a Rater-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1