Literature DB >> 21239143

Optimizing vs. matching: response strategy in a probabilistic learning task is associated with negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

Zuzana Kasanova1, James A Waltz, Gregory P Strauss, Michael J Frank, James M Gold.   

Abstract

Previous research indicates that behavioral performance in simple probability learning tasks can be organized into response strategy classifications that are thought to predict important personal characteristics and individual differences. Typically, relatively small proportion of subjects can be identified as optimizers for effectively exploiting the environment and choosing the more rewarding stimulus nearly all of the time. In contrast, the vast majority of subjects behaves sub-optimally and adopts the matching or super-matching strategy, apportioning their responses in a way that matches or slightly exceeds the probabilities of reinforcement. In the present study, we administered a two-choice probability learning paradigm to 51 individuals with schizophrenia (SZ) and 29 healthy controls (NC) to examine whether there are differences in the proportion of subjects falling into these response strategy classifications, and to determine whether task performance is differentially associated with symptom severity and neuropsychological functioning. Although the sample of SZ patients did not differ from NC in overall rate of learning or end performance, significant clinical differences emerged when patients were divided into optimizing, super-matching and matching subgroups based upon task performance. Patients classified as optimizers, who adopted the most advantageous learning strategy, exhibited higher levels of positive and negative symptoms than their matching and super-matching counterparts. Importantly, when both positive and negative symptoms were considered together, only negative symptom severity was a significant predictor of whether a subject would behave optimally, with each one standard deviation increase in negative symptoms increasing the odds of a patient being an optimizer by as much as 80%. These data provide a rare example of a greater clinical impairment being associated with better behavioral performance.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21239143      PMCID: PMC3051026          DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2010.12.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Schizophr Res        ISSN: 0920-9964            Impact factor:   4.939


  40 in total

1.  DIFFERENTIAL MONETARY GAINS AND LOSSES AND EVENT PROBABILITY IN A TWO-CHOICE SITUATION.

Authors:  J L MYERS; J G FORT; L KATZ; M M SUYDAM
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1963-11

2.  Reward probability, amount, and information as determiners of sequential two-alternative decisions.

Authors:  W EDWARDS
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1956-09

3.  Matching behavior and the representation of value in the parietal cortex.

Authors:  Leo P Sugrue; Greg S Corrado; William T Newsome
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-06-18       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Trend detection via temporal difference model predicts inferior prefrontal cortex activation during acquisition of advantageous action selection.

Authors:  Martin P Paulus; Justin S Feinstein; Susan F Tapert; Thomas T Liu
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  On the law of effect.

Authors:  R J Herrnstein
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1970-03       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Associative learning in deficit and nondeficit schizophrenia.

Authors:  Márta Farkas; Patricia Polgár; Oguz Kelemen; János Réthelyi; István Bitter; Catherine E Myers; Mark A Gluck; Szabolcs Kéri
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2008-01-08       Impact factor: 1.837

7.  Probability learning and a negative recency effect in the serial anticipation of alternative symbols.

Authors:  M E JARVIK
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1951-04

8.  How to find the way out from four rooms? The learning of "chaining" associations may shed light on the neuropsychology of the deficit syndrome of schizophrenia.

Authors:  Patricia Polgár; Márta Farkas; Orsolya Nagy; Oguz Kelemen; János Réthelyi; István Bitter; Catherine E Myers; Mark A Gluck; Szabolcs Kéri
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2007-08-10       Impact factor: 4.939

9.  Use of methods from chaos theory to quantify a fundamental dysfunction in the behavioral organization of schizophrenic patients.

Authors:  M P Paulus; M A Geyer; D L Braff
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 18.112

10.  Disrupted prediction-error signal in psychosis: evidence for an associative account of delusions.

Authors:  P R Corlett; G K Murray; G D Honey; M R F Aitken; D R Shanks; T W Robbins; E T Bullmore; A Dickinson; P C Fletcher
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2007-08-09       Impact factor: 13.501

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  The NEWMEDS rodent touchscreen test battery for cognition relevant to schizophrenia.

Authors:  M Hvoslef-Eide; A C Mar; S R O Nilsson; J Alsiö; C J Heath; L M Saksida; T W Robbins; T J Bussey
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 4.530

2.  Deficits in positive reinforcement learning and uncertainty-driven exploration are associated with distinct aspects of negative symptoms in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Gregory P Strauss; Michael J Frank; James A Waltz; Zuzana Kasanova; Ellen S Herbener; James M Gold
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2010-12-17       Impact factor: 13.382

3.  Impaired Expected Value Computations in Schizophrenia Are Associated With a Reduced Ability to Integrate Reward Probability and Magnitude of Recent Outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Hernaus; Michael J Frank; Elliot C Brown; Jaime K Brown; James M Gold; James A Waltz
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging       Date:  2018-12-07

4.  A review of reward processing and motivational impairment in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Gregory P Strauss; James A Waltz; James M Gold
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2013-12-27       Impact factor: 9.306

Review 5.  Measuring reinforcement learning and motivation constructs in experimental animals: relevance to the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

Authors:  Athina Markou; John D Salamone; Timothy J Bussey; Adam C Mar; Daniela Brunner; Gary Gilmour; Peter Balsam
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 8.989

Review 6.  Reinforcement learning and dopamine in schizophrenia: dimensions of symptoms or specific features of a disease group?

Authors:  Lorenz Deserno; Rebecca Boehme; Andreas Heinz; Florian Schlagenhauf
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2013-12-23       Impact factor: 4.157

7.  Inferring reward prediction errors in patients with schizophrenia: a dynamic reward task for reinforcement learning.

Authors:  Chia-Tzu Li; Wen-Sung Lai; Chih-Min Liu; Yung-Fong Hsu
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-11-11

8.  Orbitofrontal dopamine depletion upregulates caudate dopamine and alters behavior via changes in reinforcement sensitivity.

Authors:  H F Clarke; R N Cardinal; R Rygula; Y T Hong; T D Fryer; S J Sawiak; V Ferrari; G Cockcroft; F I Aigbirhio; T W Robbins; A C Roberts
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 6.167

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.