Computational modeling of reversal learning impairments in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder reveals shared failure to exploit rewards.

IF 3.1 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Journal of psychopathology and clinical science Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-10 DOI:10.1037/abn0000944
Angus W MacDonald, Edward Patzelt, Zeb Kurth-Nelson, Deanna M Barch, Cameron S Carter, James M Gold, J Daniel Ragland, Steven M Silverstein
{"title":"Computational modeling of reversal learning impairments in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder reveals shared failure to exploit rewards.","authors":"Angus W MacDonald, Edward Patzelt, Zeb Kurth-Nelson, Deanna M Barch, Cameron S Carter, James M Gold, J Daniel Ragland, Steven M Silverstein","doi":"10.1037/abn0000944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The distinction between the concepts of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is fundamental to the Kraepelinian tradition in psychiatry. One mechanism undergirding this distinction, a difference in reward sensitivity, has been championed by a number of scholars. As part of the Cognitive Neuroscience Test Reliability and Clinical applications for Serious mental illnesses consortium, 225 participants including people with schizophrenia (<i>n</i> = 69), schizoaffective disorder (<i>n</i> = 55), and bipolar affective disorder (<i>n</i> = 53) performed a probabilistic reversal learning task. This task switches the rewarded stimulus at various times throughout the task. Our analyses leveraged a Hidden Markov Model to examine trial-by-trial decisions of participants to reveal the differences between patient groups in their response to reward feedback. Whereas no patient group showed difficulty reversing their preferred categories after a switch in the task's contingencies and bipolar patient performance was spared in some other ways, all patient groups made more errors throughout the task because of a greater tendency to shift away from rewarded categories (i.e., win-switching). Furthermore, patients' cognitive ability is specifically related to this aspect of the task. Rather than validating a Kraepelinian dichotomy, these findings suggest that a failure to exploit rewards may reflect a mechanistic deficit common across both affective and nonaffective psychoses related to cognitive impairments in patients. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":73914,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science","volume":" ","pages":"262-271"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955188/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000944","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The distinction between the concepts of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is fundamental to the Kraepelinian tradition in psychiatry. One mechanism undergirding this distinction, a difference in reward sensitivity, has been championed by a number of scholars. As part of the Cognitive Neuroscience Test Reliability and Clinical applications for Serious mental illnesses consortium, 225 participants including people with schizophrenia (n = 69), schizoaffective disorder (n = 55), and bipolar affective disorder (n = 53) performed a probabilistic reversal learning task. This task switches the rewarded stimulus at various times throughout the task. Our analyses leveraged a Hidden Markov Model to examine trial-by-trial decisions of participants to reveal the differences between patient groups in their response to reward feedback. Whereas no patient group showed difficulty reversing their preferred categories after a switch in the task's contingencies and bipolar patient performance was spared in some other ways, all patient groups made more errors throughout the task because of a greater tendency to shift away from rewarded categories (i.e., win-switching). Furthermore, patients' cognitive ability is specifically related to this aspect of the task. Rather than validating a Kraepelinian dichotomy, these findings suggest that a failure to exploit rewards may reflect a mechanistic deficit common across both affective and nonaffective psychoses related to cognitive impairments in patients. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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
精神分裂症和双相情感障碍的逆向学习障碍的计算模型揭示了利用奖励的共同失败。
精神分裂症和双相情感障碍概念之间的区别是精神病学kraepelian传统的基础。支持这种区别的一种机制,即奖励敏感性的差异,得到了许多学者的支持。作为严重精神疾病认知神经科学测试可靠性和临床应用联盟的一部分,225名参与者包括精神分裂症(n = 69)、分裂情感障碍(n = 55)和双相情感障碍(n = 53)患者执行了一个概率逆转学习任务。这个任务在整个任务的不同时间切换奖励刺激。我们的分析利用了一个隐马尔可夫模型来检查参与者的一次又一次的决策,以揭示不同患者群体对奖励反馈的反应差异。然而,在任务的偶然性转换后,没有患者组表现出难以逆转他们偏好的类别,并且双相患者的表现在其他一些方面得以幸免,所有患者组在整个任务过程中都犯了更多的错误,因为他们更倾向于从奖励类别转移(即,胜利转换)。此外,患者的认知能力与这方面的任务特别相关。而不是验证kraepelian二分法,这些发现表明,未能利用奖励可能反映了与患者认知障碍相关的情感性和非情感性精神病中常见的机械性缺陷。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
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
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reciprocal associations between PTSD symptoms and functioning over time among veteran men and women. The association between working memory and jumping to conclusions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Using machine learning to identify the strongest personal, school, and family correlates of youth mental health and well-being. Supplemental Material for Startle Potentiation to Unpredictable Threat and the Internalizing Spectrum Supplemental Material for The Real-Time Interplay Between Identity, Emptiness, and Nonsuicidal Self-Injury Ideation: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study in Treatment-Seeking Individuals
×
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