Literature DB >> 32593735

Modeling perception and behavior in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: Support for the predictive processing framework.

Eren Kafadar1, Vijay A Mittal2, Gregory P Strauss3, Hannah C Chapman3, Lauren M Ellman4, Sonia Bansal5, James M Gold5, Ben Alderson-Day6, Samuel Evans7, Jamie Moffatt8, Steven M Silverstein9, Elaine F Walker10, Scott W Woods1, Philip R Corlett1, Albert R Powers11.   

Abstract

Early intervention in psychotic spectrum disorders is critical for maximizing key clinical outcomes. While there is some evidence for the utility of intervention during the prodromal phase of the illness, efficacy of interventions is difficult to assess without appropriate risk stratification. This will require biomarkers that robustly help to identify risk level and are also relatively easy to obtain. Recent work highlights the utility of computer-based behavioral tasks for understanding the pathophysiology of psychotic symptoms. Computational modeling of performance on such tasks may be particularly useful because they explicitly and formally link performance and symptom expression. Several recent studies have successfully applied principles of Bayesian inference to understanding the computational underpinnings of hallucinations. Within this framework, hallucinations are seen as arising from an over-weighting of prior beliefs relative to sensory evidence. This view is supported by recently-published data from two tasks: the Conditioned Hallucinations (CH) task, which determines the degree to which participants use expectations in detecting a target tone; and a Sine-Vocoded Speech (SVS) task, in which participants can use prior exposure to speech samples to inform their understanding of degraded speech stimuli. We administered both of these tasks to two samples of participants at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR; N = 19) and healthy controls (HC; N = 17). CHR participants reported both more conditioned hallucinations and more pre-training SVS detection. In addition, relationships were found between participants' performance on both tasks. On computational modeling of behavior on the CH task, CHR participants demonstrate significantly poorer recognition of task volatility as well as a trend toward higher weighting of priors. A relationship was found between this latter effect and performance on both tasks. Taken together, these results support the assertion that these two tasks may be driven by similar latent factors in perceptual inference, and highlight the potential utility of computationally-based tasks in identifying risk.
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical high risk for psychosis; Computational psychiatry; Perception; Predictive coding; Psychophysics; Psychosis

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32593735      PMCID: PMC7774587          DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2020.04.017

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


  55 in total

1.  Negative symptoms and the failure to represent the expected reward value of actions: behavioral and computational modeling evidence.

Authors:  James M Gold; James A Waltz; Tatyana M Matveeva; Zuzana Kasanova; Gregory P Strauss; Ellen S Herbener; Anne G E Collins; Michael J Frank
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  2012-02

2.  The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain?

Authors:  Karl Friston
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2009-06-24       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 3.  Hallucinations and Strong Priors.

Authors:  Philip R Corlett; Guillermo Horga; Paul C Fletcher; Ben Alderson-Day; Katharina Schmack; Albert R Powers
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2018-12-21       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 4.  Symptom assessment in schizophrenic prodromal states.

Authors:  T J Miller; T H McGlashan; S W Woods; K Stein; N Driesen; C M Corcoran; R Hoffman; L Davidson
Journal:  Psychiatr Q       Date:  1999

5.  Does hallucination perceptual modality impact psychosis risk?

Authors:  H F Niles; B C Walsh; S W Woods; A R Powers
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand       Date:  2019-08-16       Impact factor: 6.392

6.  A bayesian foundation for individual learning under uncertainty.

Authors:  Christoph Mathys; Jean Daunizeau; Karl J Friston; Klaas E Stephan
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2011-05-02       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 7.  Predictions not commands: active inference in the motor system.

Authors:  Rick A Adams; Stewart Shipp; Karl J Friston
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2012-11-06       Impact factor: 3.270

8.  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

9.  Longitudinal alterations in motivational salience processing in ultra-high-risk subjects for psychosis.

Authors:  A Schmidt; M Antoniades; P Allen; A Egerton; C A Chaddock; S Borgwardt; P Fusar-Poli; J P Roiser; O Howes; P McGuire
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 7.723

10.  Increased weighting on prior knowledge in Lewy body-associated visual hallucinations.

Authors:  Angeliki Zarkali; Rick A Adams; Stamatios Psarras; Louise-Ann Leyland; Geraint Rees; Rimona S Weil
Journal:  Brain Commun       Date:  2019-07-16
View more
  9 in total

1.  Targeted effects of ketamine on perceptual expectation during mediated learning in rats.

Authors:  Leah M Fleming; Frances-Julia B Jaynes; Summer L Thompson; Philip R Corlett; Jane R Taylor
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 4.415

2.  Relating Glutamate, Conditioned, and Clinical Hallucinations via 1H-MR Spectroscopy.

Authors:  Pantelis Leptourgos; Sonia Bansal; Jenna Dutterer; Adam Culbreth; Albert Powers; Praveen Suthaharan; Joshua Kenney; Molly Erickson; James Waltz; S Andrea Wijtenburg; Frank Gaston; Laura M Rowland; James Gold; Philip Corlett
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 7.348

3.  Perceptual pathways to hallucinogenesis.

Authors:  Andrew D Sheldon; Eren Kafadar; Victoria Fisher; Maximillian S Greenwald; Fraser Aitken; Alyson M Negreira; Scott W Woods; Albert R Powers
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 4.662

4.  Commentary. Toward a core outcomes assessment set for clinical high risk.

Authors:  Scott W Woods; Catalina V Mourgues-Codern; Albert R Powers
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 4.939

5.  Increased face detection responses on the mooney faces test in people at clinical high risk for psychosis.

Authors:  Albert R Powers; Philip R Corlett; Steven M Silverstein; Judy L Thompson; James M Gold; Jason Schiffman; James A Waltz; Trevor F Williams; Richard E Zinbarg; Vijay A Mittal; Lauren M Ellman; Gregory P Strauss; Elaine F Walker; Scott W Woods; Jason A Levin; Eren Kafadar; Joshua Kenney; Dillon Smith
Journal:  NPJ Schizophr       Date:  2021-05-17

6.  Enhancing Psychosis Risk Prediction Through Computational Cognitive Neuroscience.

Authors:  James M Gold; Philip R Corlett; Gregory P Strauss; Jason Schiffman; Lauren M Ellman; Elaine F Walker; Albert R Powers; Scott W Woods; James A Waltz; Steven M Silverstein; Vijay A Mittal
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 9.306

7.  Susceptibility to auditory hallucinations is associated with spontaneous but not directed modulation of top-down expectations for speech.

Authors:  Ben Alderson-Day; Jamie Moffatt; César F Lima; Saloni Krishnan; Charles Fernyhough; Sophie K Scott; Sophie Denton; Ivy Yi Ting Leong; Alena D Oncel; Yu-Lin Wu; Zehra Gurbuz; Samuel Evans
Journal:  Neurosci Conscious       Date:  2022-02-01

Review 8.  Models of Dynamic Belief Updating in Psychosis-A Review Across Different Computational Approaches.

Authors:  Teresa Katthagen; Sophie Fromm; Lara Wieland; Florian Schlagenhauf
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 5.435

9.  A computational lens on menopause-associated psychosis.

Authors:  Victoria L Fisher; Liara S Ortiz; Albert R Powers
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 5.435

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.