4.7 Article

The relationship between negative symptoms and cognitive functioning in patients at clinical high risk for psychosis

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 268, Issue -, Pages 21-27

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.06.047

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [3200 - 057 216.99, 3200 - 0572 216.99, PBBSB-106 936, 3232BO-119 382]
  2. Nora van Meeuwen-Haefliger Stiftung, Basel (CH)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Negative symptoms and neurocognitive performance have been reported to be negatively associated in patients with emerging psychosis. However, most previous studies focused on patients with frank psychosis and did not differentiate between subdomains of negative symptoms. Hence, we aimed to elucidate the specific relationship between negative symptoms and cognitive functioning in patients at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis. Data from 154 CHR patients collected within the prospective Fruherkennung von Psychosen (FePsy) study were analyzed. Negative symptoms were assessed with the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) and cognitive functioning with an extensive neuropsychological test battery. Regression analyses revealed significant negative associations between negative symptoms and cognitive functioning, particularly in the domains of nonverbal intelligence and verbal fluency. When analyzing each negative symptom domain separately, alogia and asociality/anhedonia were significantly negatively associated with nonverbal intelligence and alogia additionally with verbal fluency. Overall, our results in CHR patients are similar to those reported in patients with frank psychosis. The strong negative association between verbal fluency and negative symptoms may be indicative of an overlap between these constructs. Verbal fluency might have a strong influence on the clinical impression of negative symptoms (particularly alogia) and vice versa.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available