A comparative study of theory of mind in taxon-like clusters of psychometric schizotypes and individuals at genetic risk for schizophrenia.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Cognitive Neuropsychiatry Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1080/13546805.2022.2147814
Margarita Alfimova, Victoria Plakunova, Vasily Kaleda, Tatyana Lezheiko, Vera Golimbet
{"title":"A comparative study of theory of mind in taxon-like clusters of psychometric schizotypes and individuals at genetic risk for schizophrenia.","authors":"Margarita Alfimova,&nbsp;Victoria Plakunova,&nbsp;Vasily Kaleda,&nbsp;Tatyana Lezheiko,&nbsp;Vera Golimbet","doi":"10.1080/13546805.2022.2147814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Introduction:</i> Clinical and family studies suggest that alterations of theory of mind (ToM) represent a marker of genetic liability to schizophrenia. Findings regarding ToM in schizotypy are less consistent. The study aimed to explore whether this might be due to an insufficient account of the heterogeneity of schizotypy in prior research and/or the fact that in psychometric schizotypy ToM alterations could manifest as subtle peculiarities rather than overt errors of mentalising.<i>Methods:</i> Individuals without a family history of psychosis (<i>n</i> = 150) were assigned to low, positive, negative, and high mixed schizotypy classes based on a cluster analysis of 1322 subjects who completed the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire. The classes were compared on their performance of faux pas tasks with 77 adult first-degree relatives of schizophrenia patients, who represent individuals at genetic risk for schizophrenia. Besides overt errors, subtle alterations in ToM were analysed using expert judgment.<i>Results:</i> The relatives tended to make overt errors and demonstrated specific features of intentional reasoning. None of the schizotypal classes showed similar trends.<i>Conclusions:</i> The results complement the literature on the subjective-objective disjunction in psychometric schizotypes and did not provide evidence that ToM anomalies are a marker of genetic liability to schizophrenia in this cohort.</p>","PeriodicalId":51277,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neuropsychiatry","volume":"28 1","pages":"36-51"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neuropsychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2022.2147814","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: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical and family studies suggest that alterations of theory of mind (ToM) represent a marker of genetic liability to schizophrenia. Findings regarding ToM in schizotypy are less consistent. The study aimed to explore whether this might be due to an insufficient account of the heterogeneity of schizotypy in prior research and/or the fact that in psychometric schizotypy ToM alterations could manifest as subtle peculiarities rather than overt errors of mentalising.Methods: Individuals without a family history of psychosis (n = 150) were assigned to low, positive, negative, and high mixed schizotypy classes based on a cluster analysis of 1322 subjects who completed the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire. The classes were compared on their performance of faux pas tasks with 77 adult first-degree relatives of schizophrenia patients, who represent individuals at genetic risk for schizophrenia. Besides overt errors, subtle alterations in ToM were analysed using expert judgment.Results: The relatives tended to make overt errors and demonstrated specific features of intentional reasoning. None of the schizotypal classes showed similar trends.Conclusions: The results complement the literature on the subjective-objective disjunction in psychometric schizotypes and did not provide evidence that ToM anomalies are a marker of genetic liability to schizophrenia in this cohort.

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
心理测量分裂型类群与精神分裂症遗传风险个体心理理论的比较研究。
临床和家庭研究表明,心理理论(ToM)的改变是精神分裂症遗传倾向的一个标志。关于分裂型中ToM的研究结果不太一致。该研究旨在探讨这是否可能是由于先前研究中对精神分裂型异质性的解释不足,以及/或在精神分裂型中,ToM的改变可能表现为微妙的独特性,而不是明显的精神化错误。方法:对1322名完成精神分裂型人格问卷的受试者进行聚类分析,将无精神家族史的个体(n = 150)分为低、阳性、阴性和高混合精神分裂型类别。这些班级与77名精神分裂症患者的成年一级亲属进行了失责任务的表现比较,这些人代表着精神分裂症遗传风险的个体。除了明显的错误外,还使用专家判断分析了ToM的细微变化。结果:亲属倾向于犯明显的错误,并表现出故意推理的特定特征。没有一个分裂型班级表现出类似的趋势。结论:该结果补充了有关精神分裂型主客观分离的文献,并没有提供证据表明ToM异常是该队列中精神分裂症遗传易感性的标志。
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