4.7 Article

Cognitive control of gaze in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 225, 期 3, 页码 254-262

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.12.033

关键词

Saccades; Response inhibition; Response monitoring; Cognitive control; Stop signal; Countermanding

资金

  1. NIMH [MH073028]
  2. Gertrude Conaway Vanderbilt Chair [F31-MH085405-01]
  3. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research Rubicon Grant [P30-EY08126, MH055806]
  4. E. Bronson Ingram Chair in Neuroscience [MH073878]
  5. NICHD [P30 HD15052]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the present study was to compare two components of executive functioning, response monitoring and inhibition, in bipolar disorder (BP) and schizophrenia (SZ). The saccadic countermanding task is a translational paradigm optimized for detecting subtle abnormalities in response monitoring and response inhibition. We have previously reported countermanding performance abnormalities in SZ, but the degree to which these impairments are shared by other psychotic disorders is unknown. 18 BP, 17 SZ, and 16 demographically matched healthy controls (HC) participated in a saccadic countermanding task. Performance on the countermanding task is approximated as a race between movement generation and inhibition processes; this model provides an estimate of the time needed to cancel a planned movement. Response monitoring was assessed by the reaction time (RT) adjustments based on trial history. Like SZ patients, BP patients needed more time to cancel a planned movement. The two patient groups had equivalent inhibition efficiency. On trial history-based RT adjustments, however, we found a trend towards exaggerated trial history-based slowing in SZ compared to BP. Findings have implications for understanding the neurobiology of cognitive control, for defining the etiological overlap between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and for developing pharmacological treatments of cognitive impairments. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据