James M Gold1, Deanna M Barch2, Leah M Feuerstahler3, Cameron S Carter4, Angus W MacDonald5, J Daniel Ragland4, Steven M Silverstein6,7, Milton E Strauss8, Steven J Luck9. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 2. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. 3. Graduate School of Education, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 6. Rutgers University Behavioral Health Care, Piscataway, NJ. 7. Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Department of Psychiatry, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ. 8. Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. 9. Department of Psychology, Center for Mind and Brain, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Working memory (WM) has been a central focus of cognitive neuroscience research because WM is a resource that is involved in many different cognitive operations. The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of WM paradigms developed in the basic cognitive neuroscience literature, including methods designed to estimate storage capacity without contamination by lapses of attention. METHODS: A total of 61 people with schizophrenia, 49 with schizoaffective disorder, 47 with bipolar disorder with psychosis, and 59 healthy volunteers were recruited. Participants received multiple WM tasks, including two versions each of a multiple Change Detection paradigm, a visual Change Localization paradigm, and a Running Span task. RESULTS: Healthy volunteers performed better than the combined patient group on the visual Change Localization and running span measures. The multiple Change Detection tasks provided mixed evidence about WM capacity reduction in the patient groups, but a mathematical model of performance suggested that the patient groups differed from controls in their rate of attention lapsing. The 3 patient groups performed similarly on the WM tasks. Capacity estimates from the Change Detection and Localization tasks showed significant correlations with functional capacity and functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The patient groups generally performed in a similarly impaired fashion across tasks, suggesting that WM impairment and attention lapsing are general features of psychotic disorders. Capacity estimates from the Change Localization and Detection tasks were related to functional capacity and outcome, suggesting that these methods may be useful in a clinical context.
BACKGROUND:Working memory (WM) has been a central focus of cognitive neuroscience research because WM is a resource that is involved in many different cognitive operations. The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of WM paradigms developed in the basic cognitive neuroscience literature, including methods designed to estimate storage capacity without contamination by lapses of attention. METHODS: A total of 61 people with schizophrenia, 49 with schizoaffective disorder, 47 with bipolar disorder with psychosis, and 59 healthy volunteers were recruited. Participants received multiple WM tasks, including two versions each of a multiple Change Detection paradigm, a visual Change Localization paradigm, and a Running Span task. RESULTS: Healthy volunteers performed better than the combined patient group on the visual Change Localization and running span measures. The multiple Change Detection tasks provided mixed evidence about WM capacity reduction in the patient groups, but a mathematical model of performance suggested that the patient groups differed from controls in their rate of attention lapsing. The 3 patient groups performed similarly on the WM tasks. Capacity estimates from the Change Detection and Localization tasks showed significant correlations with functional capacity and functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The patient groups generally performed in a similarly impaired fashion across tasks, suggesting that WM impairment and attention lapsing are general features of psychotic disorders. Capacity estimates from the Change Localization and Detection tasks were related to functional capacity and outcome, suggesting that these methods may be useful in a clinical context.
Authors: Robert S Kern; James M Gold; Dwight Dickinson; Michael F Green; Keith H Nuechterlein; Lyle E Baade; Richard S E Keefe; Raquelle I Mesholam-Gately; Larry J Seidman; Cathy Lee; Catherine A Sugar; Stephen R Marder Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2010-12-14 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: David C Glahn; Carrie E Bearden; Sibel Cakir; Jennifer A Barrett; Pablo Najt; E Serap Monkul; Natalie Maples; Dawn I Velligan; Jair C Soares Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: Michael Berk; Gin S Malhi; Catherine Cahill; A Catherine Carman; Dusan Hadzi-Pavlovic; Mary T Hawkins; Mauricio Tohen; Philip B Mitchell Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: James M Gold; Sonia Bansal; John M Gaspar; Shuo Chen; Benjamin M Robinson; Britta Hahn; Steven J Luck Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Stefan Duschek; Cristina Muñoz Ladrón de Guevara; María José Fernández Serrano; Casandra I Montoro; Santiago Pelegrina López; Gustavo A Reyes Del Paso Journal: Behav Neurol Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 3.112
Authors: Sara Siddi; Antonio Preti; Elvira Lara; Gildas Brébion; Regina Vila; Maria Iglesias; Jorge Cuevas-Esteban; Raquel López-Carrilero; Anna Butjosa; Josep Maria Haro Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Britta Hahn; Gi-Yeul Bae; Benjamin M Robinson; Carly J Leonard; Steven J Luck; James M Gold Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2020-04-25 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Christophe Clesse; S Salime; I Dumand; S Barbier Concetta-Ciciarelli; S Lavenir; K Kacemi; P Heckel-Chalet; Frank Sissung; Aurore Poinsignon; Anthony Simon; M Decker; M Batt Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 4.157