BACKGROUND: Language use is of increasing interest in the study of mental illness. Analytical approaches range from phenomenological and qualitative to formal computational quantitative methods. Practically, the approach may have utility in predicting clinical outcomes. We harnessed a real-world sample (blog entries) from groups with psychosis, strong beliefs, odd beliefs, illness, mental illness and/or social isolation to validate and extend laboratory findings about lexical differences between psychosis and control subjects. METHOD: We describe the results of two experiments using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software to assess word category frequencies. In experiment 1, we compared word use in psychosis and control subjects in the laboratory (23 per group), and related results to subject symptoms. In experiment 2, we examined lexical patterns in blog entries written by people with psychosis and eight comparison groups. In addition to between-group comparisons, we used factor analysis followed by clustering to discern the contributions of strong belief, odd belief and illness identity to lexical patterns. RESULTS: Consistent with others' work, we found that first-person pronouns, biological process words and negative emotion words were more frequent in psychosis language. We tested lexical differences between bloggers with psychosis and multiple relevant comparison groups. Clustering analysis revealed that word use frequencies did not group individuals with strong or odd beliefs, but instead grouped individuals with any illness (mental or physical). CONCLUSIONS: Pairing of laboratory and real-world samples reveals that lexical markers previously identified as specific language changes in depression and psychosis are probably markers of illness in general.
BACKGROUND: Language use is of increasing interest in the study of mental illness. Analytical approaches range from phenomenological and qualitative to formal computational quantitative methods. Practically, the approach may have utility in predicting clinical outcomes. We harnessed a real-world sample (blog entries) from groups with psychosis, strong beliefs, odd beliefs, illness, mental illness and/or social isolation to validate and extend laboratory findings about lexical differences between psychosis and control subjects. METHOD: We describe the results of two experiments using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software to assess word category frequencies. In experiment 1, we compared word use in psychosis and control subjects in the laboratory (23 per group), and related results to subject symptoms. In experiment 2, we examined lexical patterns in blog entries written by people with psychosis and eight comparison groups. In addition to between-group comparisons, we used factor analysis followed by clustering to discern the contributions of strong belief, odd belief and illness identity to lexical patterns. RESULTS: Consistent with others' work, we found that first-person pronouns, biological process words and negative emotion words were more frequent in psychosis language. We tested lexical differences between bloggers with psychosis and multiple relevant comparison groups. Clustering analysis revealed that word use frequencies did not group individuals with strong or odd beliefs, but instead grouped individuals with any illness (mental or physical). CONCLUSIONS: Pairing of laboratory and real-world samples reveals that lexical markers previously identified as specific language changes in depression and psychosis are probably markers of illness in general.
Authors: Rael D Strous; Moshe Koppel; Jonathan Fine; Smadar Nachliel; Ginette Shaked; Ari Z Zivotofsky Journal: J Nerv Ment Dis Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.254
Authors: Michele L Pearson; Joseph V Selby; Kenneth A Katz; Virginia Cantrell; Christopher R Braden; Monica E Parise; Christopher D Paddock; Michael R Lewin-Smith; Victor F Kalasinsky; Felicia C Goldstein; Allen W Hightower; Arthur Papier; Brian Lewis; Sarita Motipara; Mark L Eberhard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Svetlana Zonis; Robert N Pechnick; Vladimir A Ljubimov; Michael Mahgerefteh; Kolja Wawrowsky; Kathrin S Michelsen; Vera Chesnokova Journal: J Neuroinflammation Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 8.322
Authors: M Faugere; J A Micoulaud-Franchi; M Alessandrini; R Richieri; C Faget-Agius; P Auquier; C Lançon; L Boyer Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-06-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Michael L Birnbaum; Sindhu Kiranmai Ernala; Asra F Rizvi; Munmun De Choudhury; John M Kane Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Vitor C Zimmerer; Stuart Watson; Douglas Turkington; I Nicol Ferrier; Wolfram Hinzen Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Gabriel Sevilla; Joana Rosselló; Raymond Salvador; Salvador Sarró; Laura López-Araquistain; Edith Pomarol-Clotet; Wolfram Hinzen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sarah K Fineberg; Jacob Leavitt; Dylan S Stahl; Sharif Kronemer; Christopher D Landry; Aaron Alexander-Bloch; Laurence T Hunt; Philip R Corlett Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 13.382