Literature DB >> 29107832

Impaired action self-monitoring and cognitive confidence among ultra-high risk for psychosis and first-episode psychosis patients.

Ł Gawęda1, E Li2, S Lavoie2, T J Whitford3, S Moritz4, B Nelson2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring biases and overconfidence in incorrect judgments have been suggested as playing a role in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Little is known about whether self-monitoring biases may contribute to early risk factors for psychosis. In this study, action self-monitoring (i.e., discrimination between imagined and performed actions) was investigated, along with confidence in judgments among ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis individuals and first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients.
METHODS: Thirty-six UHR for psychosis individuals, 25 FEP patients and 33 healthy controls (CON) participated in the study. Participants were assessed with the Action memory task. Simple actions were presented to participants verbally or non-verbally. Some actions were required to be physically performed and others were imagined. Participants were asked whether the action was presented verbally or non-verbally (action presentation type discrimination), and whether the action was performed or imagined (self-monitoring). Confidence self-ratings related to self-monitoring responses were obtained.
RESULTS: The analysis of self-monitoring revealed that both UHR and FEP groups misattributed imagined actions as being performed (i.e., self-monitoring errors) significantly more often than the CON group. There were no differences regarding performed actions as being imagined. UHR and FEP groups made their false responses with higher confidence in their judgments than the CON group. There were no group differences regarding discrimination between the types of actions presented (verbal vs non-verbal).
CONCLUSIONS: A specific type of self-monitoring bias (i.e., misattributing imagined actions with performed actions), accompanied by high confidence in this judgment, may be a risk factor for the subsequent development of a psychotic disorder.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  At risk mental state; Early psychosis; Source monitoring; Subjective confidence

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29107832     DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.09.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Psychiatry        ISSN: 0924-9338            Impact factor:   5.361


  6 in total

1.  Toward a Complex Network of Risks for Psychosis: Combining Trauma, Cognitive Biases, Depression, and Psychotic-like Experiences on a Large Sample of Young Adults.

Authors:  Łukasz Gawęda; Renata Pionke; Jessica Hartmann; Barnaby Nelson; Andrzej Cechnicki; Dorota Frydecka
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2021-03-16       Impact factor: 9.306

2.  Developing a dynamic model of anomalous experiences and function in young people with or without psychosis: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study protocol.

Authors:  Abigail C Wright; David Fowler; Kathryn E Greenwood
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-11-03       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 3.  Abnormalities of confidence in psychiatry: an overview and future perspectives.

Authors:  Monja Hoven; Maël Lebreton; Jan B Engelmann; Damiaan Denys; Judy Luigjes; Ruth J van Holst
Journal:  Transl Psychiatry       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 6.222

Review 4.  Understanding source monitoring subtypes and their relation to psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Stefano Damiani; Alberto Donadeo; Nicola Bassetti; Gonzalo Salazar-de-Pablo; Cecilia Guiot; Pierluigi Politi; Paolo Fusar-Poli
Journal:  Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 12.145

5.  Integrating trauma, self-disturbances, cognitive biases, and personality into a model for the risk of psychosis: a longitudinal study in a non-clinical sample.

Authors:  Renata Pionke-Ubych; Dorota Frydecka; Andrzej Cechnicki; Martyna Krężołek; Barnaby Nelson; Łukasz Gawęda
Journal:  Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 5.760

6.  Construct Validity of the Mentalization Scale (MentS) Within a Mixed Psychiatric Sample.

Authors:  Felix Richter; Dagmar Steinmair; Henriette Löffler-Stastka
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-05-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.