Seeing minds – a signal detection study of agency attribution along the autism-psychosis continuum

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Cognitive Neuropsychiatry Pub Date : 2022-05-17 DOI:10.1080/13546805.2022.2075721
Rebekka Solvik Lisøy, R. Biegler, E. F. Haghish, R. Veckenstedt, S. Moritz, G. Pfuhl
{"title":"Seeing minds – a signal detection study of agency attribution along the autism-psychosis continuum","authors":"Rebekka Solvik Lisøy, R. Biegler, E. F. Haghish, R. Veckenstedt, S. Moritz, G. Pfuhl","doi":"10.1080/13546805.2022.2075721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Introduction Diametrically aberrant mentalising biases, namely hypermentalising in psychosis and hypomentalising in autism, are postulated by some theoretical models. To test this hypothesis, we measured psychotic-like experiences, autistic traits and mentalising biases in a visual chasing paradigm. Methods Participants from the general population (N = 300) and psychotic patients (N=26) judged the absence or presence of a chase during five-second long displays of seemingly randomly moving dots. Hypermentalising is seeing a chase where there is none, whereas hypomentalising is missing to see a chase. Results Psychotic-like experiences were associated with hypermentalising. Autistic traits were not associated with hypomentalising, but with a reduced ability to discriminate chasing from non-chasing trials. Given the high correlation (τ = .41) between autistic traits and psychotic-like experiences, we controlled for concomitant symptom severity on agency detection. We found that all but those with many autistic and psychotic traits showed hypomentalising, suggesting an additive effect of traits on mentalising. In the second study, we found no hypermentalising in patients with psychosis, who performed also similarly to a matched control group. Conclusions The results suggest that hypermentalising is a cognitive bias restricted to subclinical psychotic-like experiences. There was no support for a diametrically opposite mentalising bias along the autism-psychosis continuum.","PeriodicalId":51277,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neuropsychiatry","volume":"27 1","pages":"356 - 372"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neuropsychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2022.2075721","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction Diametrically aberrant mentalising biases, namely hypermentalising in psychosis and hypomentalising in autism, are postulated by some theoretical models. To test this hypothesis, we measured psychotic-like experiences, autistic traits and mentalising biases in a visual chasing paradigm. Methods Participants from the general population (N = 300) and psychotic patients (N=26) judged the absence or presence of a chase during five-second long displays of seemingly randomly moving dots. Hypermentalising is seeing a chase where there is none, whereas hypomentalising is missing to see a chase. Results Psychotic-like experiences were associated with hypermentalising. Autistic traits were not associated with hypomentalising, but with a reduced ability to discriminate chasing from non-chasing trials. Given the high correlation (τ = .41) between autistic traits and psychotic-like experiences, we controlled for concomitant symptom severity on agency detection. We found that all but those with many autistic and psychotic traits showed hypomentalising, suggesting an additive effect of traits on mentalising. In the second study, we found no hypermentalising in patients with psychosis, who performed also similarly to a matched control group. Conclusions The results suggest that hypermentalising is a cognitive bias restricted to subclinical psychotic-like experiences. There was no support for a diametrically opposite mentalising bias along the autism-psychosis continuum.
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
看到心灵——自闭症-精神病连续体代理归因的信号检测研究
一些理论模型假设了截然异常的心智化偏差,即精神病的超心智化和自闭症的低心智化。为了验证这一假设,我们在视觉追逐范式中测量了类似精神病的经历、自闭症特征和心智偏见。方法来自普通人群(N= 300)和精神病患者(N=26)的参与者在5秒钟的看似随机移动的点长时间显示中判断是否存在追逐。过度精神化是在没有追逐的情况下看到追逐,而低精神化是看不到追逐。结果类精神病经历与过度精神化有关。自闭症特征与低记忆化无关,但与区分追逐和非追逐试验的能力下降有关。考虑到自闭症特征和类精神病经历之间的高相关性(τ = 0.41),我们控制了代理检测的伴随症状严重程度。我们发现,除了那些有许多自闭症和精神病特征的人之外,所有人都表现出低心智化,这表明这些特征对心智化有叠加效应。在第二项研究中,我们发现精神病患者没有过度精神化,他们的表现也与匹配的对照组相似。结论过度精神化是一种局限于亚临床精神样体验的认知偏差。没有证据支持自闭症-精神病连续体中截然相反的精神化偏见。
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
3.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
18
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive Neuropsychiatry (CNP) publishes high quality empirical and theoretical papers in the multi-disciplinary field of cognitive neuropsychiatry. Specifically the journal promotes the study of cognitive processes underlying psychological and behavioural abnormalities, including psychotic symptoms, with and without organic brain disease. Since 1996, CNP has published original papers, short reports, case studies and theoretical and empirical reviews in fields of clinical and cognitive neuropsychiatry, which have a bearing on the understanding of normal cognitive processes. Relevant research from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive neuropsychology and clinical populations will also be considered. There are no page charges and we are able to offer free color printing where color is necessary.
期刊最新文献
How disrupted interoception could lead to disturbances in perceptual reality monitoring. Can neurocognitive performance account for dimensional paranoid ideation? Conspiracy mentality in autistic and non-autistic individuals Pattern glare sensitivity distinguishes subclinical autism and schizotypy. Limited awareness of hallucinations in patients with Alzheimer's disease.
×
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