4.7 Article

Specific cognitive deficits in a group at genetic high risk of schizophrenia

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
卷 39, 期 10, 页码 1649-1655

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291709005303

关键词

CANTAB; cognition; endophenotypes; schizophrenia; vulnerability

资金

  1. Medical Research Council of Great Britain
  2. Stanley Medical Research Institute
  3. Schizophrenia Research fund
  4. Health Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Neuropsychological deficits in schizophrenia patients and their relatives have been thought to represent possible genetic vulnerability markers or endophenotypes of the disorder. The present study describes results from the Edinburgh High Risk Study of computerized testing using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) on a group at genetic high risk (HR) of schizophrenia and a control group. Method. A total of 97 HR and 25 control participants were assessed on three tests from the CANTAB - spatial span, spatial working memory, and Stockings of Cambridge. Analyses of covariance were used to compare the HR and control groups on the main Outcome measures whilst controlling for intelligence quotient (IQ). Subsequent analysis examined the effects of the presence of symptoms on group differences. Results. HR participants had significantly reduced spatial memory capacity [F(1,118)=4.06, p=0.046] and significantly reduced planning processing speed [F(1,116)=4.16, p=0.044] compared with controls even after controlling for general intelligence (IQ). Although HR individuals made more errors and showed poorer problem-solving and strategy performance compared with controls, these differences were not significant after controlling for IQ. Subsequent analysis indicated that the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms in the HR group did not influence these specific cognitive deficits. Conclusions. Spatial memory capacity and planning processing speed may represent cognitive endophenotypes characterising the genetic predisposition to schizophrenia in this HR group.

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