4.1 Article

Visual contrast sensitivity alterations in inferred magnocellular pathways and anomalous perceptual experiences in people at high-risk for psychosis

Journal

VISUAL NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 183-189

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0952523807070253

Keywords

schizophrenia; high-risk mental state; prodrome; visual perception; magnocellular pathways; contrast sensitivity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evidence suggests that patients with schizophrenia show impaired performances on tests assessing the magnocellular (M) visual pathway. The aim of this study was to investigate M pathway functioning in persons at high-risk of psychosis. Sixteen high-risk persons at the prodromal phase of psychosis and 20 healthy controls participated. Two types of contrast sensitivity measurements were used, during which participants were asked to detect a briefly presented target Gabor patch. In the pulsed-pedestal paradigm, the luminance of the background field was decreased to saturate M pathways and to bias information processing to parvocellular (P) pathways. In the steady-pedestal paradigm, the luminance of the background field was constant and briefly presented targets were processed by the M pathway. Anomalous perceptual experiences were assessed using the Structured Interview for Assessing Perceptual Anomalies (SlAPA). Results revealed that the high-risk persons showed elevated contrast sensitivity during the M pathway test, and normal sensitivity during the P pathway test. The visual SIAPA scores showed significant positive correlations with the M pathway sensitivity values. These results suggest that the high-risk mental state is associated with hyper-reactive M pathways, which may be responsible for some anomalous perceptual experiences, including abnormal intensity of environmental stimuli, feelings of being flooded and inundated, and inability to focus attention to relevant details.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available