4.6 Article

Distinct Subtypes of Apathy Revealed by the Apathy Motivation Index

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169938

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellowship
  2. A*STAR National Science Scholarship
  3. BBSRC Anniversary Future Leader Fellowship [BB/M013596/1]
  4. Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Training Fellowship
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/M013596/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Medical Research Council [1069029] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. BBSRC [BB/M013596/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Apathy is a debilitating but poorly understood disorder characterized by a reduction in motivation. As well as being associated with several brain disorders, apathy is also prevalent in varying degrees in healthy people. Whilst many tools have been developed to assess levels of apathy in clinical disorders, surprisingly there are no measures of apathy suitable for healthy people. Moreover, although apathy is commonly comorbid with symptoms of depression, anhedonia and fatigue, how and why these symptoms are associated is unclear. Here we developed the Apathy-Motivation Index (AMI), a brief self-report index of apathy and motivation. Using exploratory factor analysis (in a sample of 505 people), and then confirmatory analysis (in a different set of 479 individuals), we identified subtypes of apathy in behavioural, social and emotional domains. Latent profile analyses showed four different profiles of apathy that were associated with varying levels of depression, anhedonia and fatigue. The AMI is a novel and reliable measure of individual differences in apathy and might provide a useful means of probing different mechanisms underlying sub-clinical lack of motivation in otherwise healthy individuals. Moreover, associations between apathy and comorbid states may be reflective of problems in different emotional, social and behavioural domains.

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

4.6
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