4.6 Article

Working memory deficit as a core neuropsychological dysfunction in schizophrenia

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
Volume 160, Issue 10, Pages 1809-1816

Publisher

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.10.1809

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study tested the hypothesis that impaired working memory is a core deficit underlying multiple neuropsychological deficits in schizophrenia patients. Method: The subjects were 27 men with stable chronic schizophrenia treated with atypical antipsychotics and 38 normal participants. They were assessed with a battery of neuropsychological tests. Verbal working memory was measured with the WAIS digit span tests, and the Dot Test was used to test spatial working memory. Results: In the patients, verbal working memory showed significant correlations with visual retention, visual orientation, simple motor function, visuomotor coordination, and executive function but not with memory for objects, memory for faces, recognition of facial emotions, or attention. Spatial working memory showed significant correlations with visual retention, visual orientation, memory for objects, memory for faces, and simple motor function but not attention, executive function, or visuomotor coordination. In the comparison group, no correlations between working memory and other neuropsychological functions were found. Conclusions: These findings support the hypothesis that working memory is a core deficit in schizophrenia. The authors postulate that the lower capacity for verbal and spatial on-line storage is rate limiting in the performance of other cognitive functions. Executive functions rely critically on the phonetic loop, complex visual functions such as object and face memory rely on the spatial on-line storage system (visuospatial scratch pad), while other functions such as visual orientation depend critically on both capacities.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available