Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)最新文献

This study modelled spite sensitivity, the worry that others are willing to incur a loss to hurt you, which is thought to undergird suspiciousness and persecutory ideation. Two samples performed a parametric, non-iterative trust game known as the Minnesota Trust Game (MTG). The MTG distinguishes suspicious decision-making from otherwise rational mistrust by incentivizing the player to trust in certain situations but not others. In Sample 1, 243 undergraduates who completed the MTG showed less trust as the amount of money they could lose increased. However, only for choices where partners had a financial disincentive to betray the player was variation in the willingness to trust associated with suspicious beliefs. We modified the Fehr-Schmidt (1999) inequity aversion model, which compares unequal outcomes in social decision-making tasks, to include the possibility for spite sensitivity. An anticipated partner's dislike of advantageous inequity (i.e., guilt) parameter included negative values, with negative guilt indicating spite. We hypothesized that the anticipated guilt parameter would be strongly related to suspicious beliefs. Our modification of the Fehr-Schmidt model improved estimation of MTG behavior. Furthermore, the estimation of partner's spite-guilt was highly correlated with choices associated with beliefs in persecution. We replicated our findings in a second sample. This parameter was weakly correlated with a self-reported measure of persecutory ideation in Sample 2. The "Suspiciousness" condition, unique to the MTG, can be modeled to isolate spite sensitivity, suggesting differentiation from inequity aversion or risk aversion. The MTG offers promise for future studies to quantify persecutory beliefs in clinical populations.

Currently, psychiatric practice lacks reliable predictive tools and a sufficiently detailed mechanistic understanding of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB) to provide timely and personalized interventions. Developing computational models of STB that integrate across behavioral, cognitive and neural levels of analysis could help better understand STB vulnerabilities and guide personalized interventions. To that end, we present a computational model based on the active inference framework. With this model, we show that several STB risk markers - hopelessness, Pavlovian bias and active-escape bias - are interrelated via the drive to maximize one's model evidence. We propose four ways in which these effects can arise: (1) increased learning from aversive outcomes, (2) reduced belief decay in response to unexpected outcomes, (3) increased stress sensitivity and (4) reduced sense of stressor controllability. These proposals stem from considering the neurocircuits implicated in STB: how the locus coeruleus - norepinephrine (LC-NE) system together with the amygdala (Amy), the dorsal prefrontal cortex (dPFC) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) mediate learning in response to acute stress and volatility as well as how the dorsal raphe nucleus - serotonin (DRN-5-HT) system together with the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) mediate stress reactivity based on perceived stressor controllability. We validate the model by simulating performance in an Avoid/Escape Go/No-Go task replicating recent behavioral findings. This serves as a proof of concept and provides a computational hypothesis space that can be tested empirically and be used to distinguish planful versus impulsive STB subtypes. We discuss the relevance of the proposed model for treatment response prediction, including pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, as well as sex differences as it relates to stress reactivity and suicide risk.

We conducted a feasibility analysis to determine the quality of data that could be collected ambiently during routine clinical conversations. We used inexpensive, consumer-grade hardware to record unstructured dialogue and open-source software tools to quantify and model face, voice (acoustic and language) and movement features. We used an external validation set to perform proof-of-concept predictive analyses and show that clinically relevant measures can be produced without a restrictive protocol.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is associated with excessive pleasure-seeking risk-taking behaviors that often characterize its clinical presentation. However, the mechanisms of risk-taking behavior are not well-understood in BD. Recent data suggest prior substance use disorder (SUD) in BD may represent certain trait-level vulnerabilities for risky behavior. This study examined the mechanisms of risk-taking and the role of SUD in BD via mathematical modeling of behavior on the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Three groups-18 euthymic BD with prior SUD (BD+), 15 euthymic BD without prior SUD (BD-), and 33 healthy comparisons (HC)-completed the BART. We modeled behavior using 4 competing hierarchical Bayesian models, and model comparison results favored the Exponential-Weight Mean-Variance (EWMV) model, which encompasses and delineates five cognitive components of risk-taking: prior belief, learning rate, risk preference, loss aversion, and behavioral consistency. Both BD groups, regardless of SUD history, showed lower behavioral consistency than HC. BD+ exhibited more pessimistic prior beliefs (relative to BD- and HC) and reduced loss aversion (relative to HC) during risk-taking on the BART. Traditional measures of risk-taking on the BART (adjusted pumps, total points, total pops) detected no group differences. These findings suggest that reduced behavioral consistency is a crucial feature of risky decision-making in BD and that SUD history in BD may signal additional trait vulnerabilities for risky behavior even when mood symptoms and substance use are in remission. This study also underscores the value of using mathematical modeling to understand behavior in research on complex disorders like BD.

Poor psychometrics, particularly low test-retest reliability, pose a major challenge for using behavioral tasks in individual differences research. Here, we demonstrate that full generative modeling of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) substantially improves test-retest reliability and may also enhance the IGT's validity for use in characterizing internalizing pathology, compared to the traditional analytic approach. IGT data $(n=50)$ was collected across two sessions, one month apart. Our full generative model incorporated (1) the Outcome Representation Learning (ORL) computational model at the person-level and (2) a group-level model that explicitly modeled test-retest reliability, along with other group-level effects. Compared to the traditional 'summary score' (proportion good decks selected), the ORL model provides a theoretically rich set of performance metrics (Reward Learning Rate $(A+)$, Punishment Learning Rate $(A-)$, Win Frequency Sensitivity $\left(\beta f\right)$, Perseveration Tendency $\left(\beta p\right)$, Memory Decay $\left(K\right)$), capturing distinct psychological processes. While test-retest reliability for the traditional summary score was only moderate ($r=.37$, BCa 95% CI [.04, .63]), test-retest reliabilities for ORL performance metrics produced by the full generative model were substantially improved, with test-retest correlations ranging between $r=.64-.82$ for the five ORL parameters. Further, while summary scores showed no substantial associations with internalizing symptoms, ORL parameters were significantly associated with internalizing symptoms. Specifically, Punishment Learning Rate was associated with higher self-reported depression and Perseveration Tendency was associated with lower self-reported anhedonia. Generative modeling offers promise for advancing individual differences research using the IGT, and behavioral tasks more generally, through enhancing task psychometrics.

Theoretical accounts have linked anxiety to intolerance of ambiguity. However, this relationship has not been well operationalized empirically. Here, we used computational and neuro-imaging methods to characterize anxiety-related differences in aversive decision-making under ambiguity and associated patterns of cortical activity. Adult human participants chose between two urns on each trial. The ratio of tokens ('O's and 'X's) in each urn determined probability of electrical stimulation receipt. A number above each urn indicated the magnitude of stimulation that would be received if a shock was delivered. On ambiguous trials, one of the two urns had tokens occluded. By varying the number of tokens occluded, we manipulated the extent of missing information. At higher levels of missing information, there is greater second order uncertainty, i.e., more uncertainty as to the probability of pulling a given type of token from the urn. Adult human participants demonstrated avoidance of ambiguous options which increased with level of missing information. Extent of 'information-level dependent' ambiguity aversion was significantly positively correlated with trait anxiety. Activity in both the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and inferior frontal sulcus during the decision-making period increased as a function of missing information. Greater engagement of these regions, on high missing information trials, was observed when participants went on to select the ambiguous option; this was especially apparent in high trait anxious individuals. These findings are consistent with individuals vulnerable to anxiety requiring greater activation of frontal regions supporting rational decision-making to overcome a predisposition to engage in ambiguity avoidance at high levels of missing information.

A general consensus persists that sensory-perceptual differences in autism, such as hypersensitivities to light or sound, result from an overreliance on new (rather than prior) sensory observations. However, conflicting Bayesian accounts of autism remain unresolved as to whether such alterations are caused by more precise sensory observations (precise likelihood model) or by forming a less precise model of the sensory context (hypo-priors model). We used a decision-under-uncertainty paradigm that manipulated uncertainty in both likelihoods and priors. Contrary to model predictions we found no differences in reliance on likelihood in autistic group (AS) compared to neurotypicals (NT) and found no differences in subjective prior variance between groups. However, we found reduced context adjustment in the AS group compared to NT. Further, the AS group showed heightened variability in their relative weighting of sensory information (vs. prior) on a trial-by-trial basis. When participants were aligned on a continuum of autistic traits, we found no associations with likelihood reliance or prior variance but found an increase in likelihood precision with autistic traits. These findings together provide empirical evidence for intact priors, precise likelihood, reduced context updating and heightened variability during sensory learning in autism.

Most of life's decisions involve risk and uncertainty regarding whether reward or loss will follow. Decision makers often face uncertainty not only about the likelihood of outcomes (what are the chances that I will get a raise if I ask my supervisor? What are the chances that my supervisor will be upset with me for asking?) but also the magnitude of outcomes (if I do get a raise, how large will it be? If my supervisor gets upset, how bad will the consequences be for me?). Only a few studies have investigated economic decision making with ambiguous likelihoods, and even fewer have investigated ambiguous outcome magnitudes. In the present report, we investigated the effects of ambiguous outcome magnitude, risk, and gains/losses in an economic decision-making task with low stakes (Study 1; $3.60-$5.70; N = 367) and high stakes (Study 2; $6-$48; N = 210) using a within-subjects design. We conducted computational modeling to determine individuals' preferences/aversions for ambiguous outcome magnitudes, risk, and gains/losses. We additionally investigated the association between trait anxiety and trait depression and decision-making parameters. Our results show that increasing stakes increased ambiguous gain aversion and unambiguous risk aversion but increased ambiguous sure loss preference; participants also became more averse to ambiguous sure gains relative to unambiguous risky gains. There were no significant effects of trait anxiety or trait depression on economic decision making. Our results suggest that as stakes increase, people tend to avoid uncertainty in the gain domain (especially ambiguous gains) but prefer ambiguous vs unambiguous sure losses.