Effort-based decision-making in ultra-high-risk for psychosis and bipolar disorder.

IF 5.5 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Psychological Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1017/S003329172400134X
E Bora, E Cesim, M S Eyuboglu, M Demir, B Yalincetin, C Ermis, S Özbek Uzman, E Sut, C Demirlek, B Verim, B Baykara, N İnal, B B Akdede
{"title":"Effort-based decision-making in ultra-high-risk for psychosis and bipolar disorder.","authors":"E Bora, E Cesim, M S Eyuboglu, M Demir, B Yalincetin, C Ermis, S Özbek Uzman, E Sut, C Demirlek, B Verim, B Baykara, N İnal, B B Akdede","doi":"10.1017/S003329172400134X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Effort-based decision-making has been proposed as a potential mechanism contributing to transdiagnostic motivational deficits in psychotic disorder and bipolar disorder. However, very limited information is available about deficits in effort-cost-decision-making in the early stages of psychotic disorder and no study has investigated effort allocation deficits before the onset of bipolar disorder. Our aim was to investigate effort-based-decision-making in ultra-high-risk for psychosis (UHR-P) and bipolar disorder (UHR-BD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Effort-cost decision-making performance was evaluated in UHR-P (<i>n</i> = 72) and UHR-BD (<i>n</i> = 68) and healthy controls (<i>n</i> = 38). Effort-Expenditure for Reward Task (EEfRT) was used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to controls, both UHR-P and UHR-BD groups were associated with a reduced possibility to choose the harder task when the reward magnitudes and/or the likelihood of receiving the reward were high. In both groups, effort allocation abnormalities were associated with poor social functioning.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current findings suggest that difficulties in effort-cost computation are transdiagnostic markers of illness liability in psychotic and bipolar disorders. In early intervention services, effort-based decision-making abnormalities should be considered as a target for interventions to manage motivational deficits in individuals at high risk for psychosis and BD.</p>","PeriodicalId":20891,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"3188-3196"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172400134X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Effort-based decision-making has been proposed as a potential mechanism contributing to transdiagnostic motivational deficits in psychotic disorder and bipolar disorder. However, very limited information is available about deficits in effort-cost-decision-making in the early stages of psychotic disorder and no study has investigated effort allocation deficits before the onset of bipolar disorder. Our aim was to investigate effort-based-decision-making in ultra-high-risk for psychosis (UHR-P) and bipolar disorder (UHR-BD).

Methods: Effort-cost decision-making performance was evaluated in UHR-P (n = 72) and UHR-BD (n = 68) and healthy controls (n = 38). Effort-Expenditure for Reward Task (EEfRT) was used.

Results: Compared to controls, both UHR-P and UHR-BD groups were associated with a reduced possibility to choose the harder task when the reward magnitudes and/or the likelihood of receiving the reward were high. In both groups, effort allocation abnormalities were associated with poor social functioning.

Conclusions: The current findings suggest that difficulties in effort-cost computation are transdiagnostic markers of illness liability in psychotic and bipolar disorders. In early intervention services, effort-based decision-making abnormalities should be considered as a target for interventions to manage motivational deficits in individuals at high risk for psychosis and BD.

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
精神病和双相情感障碍超高风险人群基于努力的决策。
背景:基于努力的决策被认为是导致精神障碍和躁狂症跨诊断动机缺陷的潜在机制。然而,关于精神障碍早期阶段努力成本决策缺陷的信息非常有限,也没有研究调查过双相情感障碍发病前的努力分配缺陷。我们的目的是调查超高危精神病(UHR-P)和双相情感障碍(UHR-BD)患者基于努力的决策:方法:对超高危精神病(UHR-P)(72 人)和双相情感障碍(UHR-BD)(68 人)以及健康对照组(38 人)的努力成本决策表现进行评估。结果:与对照组相比,UHR-P 和 UHR-BD(n = 68)的努力成本决策绩效均低于对照组(n = 38):结果:与对照组相比,UHR-P 组和 UHR-BD 组在奖励幅度和/或获得奖励的可能性较高时,选择较难任务的可能性降低。在这两组中,努力分配异常都与社会功能低下有关:目前的研究结果表明,努力成本计算困难是精神病和躁郁症疾病责任的跨诊断标志。在早期干预服务中,应考虑将基于努力的决策异常作为干预目标,以控制精神病和躁狂症高危人群的动机缺陷。
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
Psychological Medicine
Psychological Medicine 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
711
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Now in its fifth decade of publication, Psychological Medicine is a leading international journal in the fields of psychiatry, related aspects of psychology and basic sciences. From 2014, there are 16 issues a year, each featuring original articles reporting key research being undertaken worldwide, together with shorter editorials by distinguished scholars and an important book review section. The journal''s success is clearly demonstrated by a consistently high impact factor.
期刊最新文献
Trauma-focused psychological interventions for psychosis: Meta-analytic evidence of differential effects on delusions and hallucinations. Changes in repetitive negative thinking and stress perception mediate treatment effects of a transdiagnostic exercise intervention. The contribution of genetic and environmental influences underlying disordered eating to exposure to weight-conscious peers. Long-term effects of mentalization-based treatment for psychotic disorder: a 5-year follow-up of a multi-center, randomized-controlled trial. Allostatic load, personality traits, and cancer risk: A prospective cohort study.
×
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:604180095
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