| Literature DB >> 30405458 |
Kirsten R Panton1, Johanna C Badcock2, J Edwin Dickinson1, David R Badcock1.
Abstract
Contour integration is impaired in schizophrenia patients, even at the first episode, but little is known about visual integration abilities prior to illness onset. To examine this issue, we compared undergraduate students high and low in schizotypal personality traits, reflecting putative liability to psychosis, on two psychophysical tasks assessing local and global stages of the integration process. The Radial Frequency Jittered Orientation Tolerance (RFJOT) task measures tolerance to orientation noise at the local signal level, when judging global stimulus orientation, whilst the Radial Frequency Integration Task (RFIT) measures the ability to globally integrate the local signals that have been extracted during shape discrimination. Positive schizotypy was assessed with the Perceptual Aberration (PAb) scale from the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales-Brief. On the RFJOT task, the High PAb group (n = 55) tolerated statistically significantly less noise (d = -0.494) and had a lower proportion of correct responses (d = -0.461) than the Low PAb group (n = 77). For the RFIT there was no statistically significant difference in integration abilities between the High and Low PAb groups. High and Low PAb groups also differed on other positive and disorganized (but not negative) schizotypy traits, hence poorer performance on the RFJOT may not be solely related to unusual perceptual experiences. These findings suggest that difficulties with local noise tolerance but not global integration occur in healthy young adults with high levels of schizotypal personality traits, and may be worth investigating as a marker of risk for schizophrenia.Entities:
Keywords: global procesisng; local processing; perceptual organization; schizophrenia; schizotypy; visual integration
Year: 2018 PMID: 30405458 PMCID: PMC6207847 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00518
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Figure 1Upper: (Radial Frequency Jittered Orientation Tolerance task). A–C in the upper part of the figure represent sample items from the Radial Frequency Jittered Orientation Tolerance (RFJOT) task. The participant is required to indicate whether the RF3 is pointed to the left (examples A,C point left) or right (example B) The amount of orientation jitter increases from example (A–C), showing 0°, 17°, and 27° of jitter, respectively. Participants are expected to perform at close to ceiling for zero jitter levels (A), with reduced accuracy as jitter is increased up to 27° jitter (C). The jitter level presented in stimulus (B) (17°) is the approximate average threshold across all participants. Lower: (Radial Frequency Integration Task). The Radial Frequency Integration Task (RFIT) measures an individuals' amplitude threshold to discriminate an RF3 (D–G) from a circle (H) when 1 cycle (D), 2 cycles (E) and 3 cycles (F,G) are present. D–F represent the RF patterns at 2.5 times the average threshold across participants, whereas (G) shows an RF3 at the average threshold for 3 cycles.
Participant characteristics in High and Low PAb groups.
| Perceptual aberration | 4.95 (2.30) | 0 (0.00) | 18.44 | <0.001 | 3.03 |
| Cognitive disorganization | 7.27 (2.64) | 5.09 (3.15) | 4.19 | <0.001 | 0.75 |
| Magical ideation | 4.35 (2.70) | 1.45 (1.85) | 7.33 | <0.001 | 1.25 |
| Social anhedonia | 3.47 (3.34) | 2.54 (2.84) | 1.72 | 0.09 | 0.30 |
| Physical anhedonia | 2.05 (1.86) | 2.21 (2.05) | −0.49 | 0.66 | −0.08 |
| Total autism quotient | 20.00 (7.00) | 16.14 (6.40) | 3.28 | 0.001 | 0.57 |
| Acuity | −0.09 (0.08) | −0.11 (0.08) | 1.35 | 0.09 | 0.31 |
| Digit symbol coding | 59.62 (9.36) | 60.73 (9.71) | −0.56 | 0.51 | −0.12 |
| Age | 19.64 (3.09) | 19.53 (2.79) | 0.23 | 0.84 | 0.04 |
| Handedness | 0.73 (0.39) | 0.66 (0.52) | 2113.50 | 0.99 | −0.02 |
p is significant at 0.05 level.
Mann-Whitney U test was used, and the effect size is represented by Z.
Figure 2Upper: Radial Frequency Jittered Orientation Tolerance (RFJOT) task thresholds (A) and proportion of correct responses (B)—collapsed across jitter levels—between High vs. Low PAb. Lower: Radiacl Frequency Integration Task (RFIT) integration slope (C) and probability summation slope estimates (D) between High and Low PAb groups. *p is significant at 0.05 level, error bars represent 95% CI.