4.6 Review

Neural Correlates of Mentalizing in Individuals With Clinical High Risk for Schizophrenia: ALE Meta-Analysis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHIATRY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.634015

关键词

theory of mind; schizophrenia; psychosis proneness; fMRI; social cognition

资金

  1. University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne (URCA)
  2. University Hospital of Reims (CHU de Reims)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Psychotic disorders encompass a range of disorders with multiple etiologies, and individuals at clinical high risk for schizophrenia show differences in neural correlates compared to healthy controls.
Psychotic disorder refers to a spectrum of disorders that have multiple etiologies, due to the complex interaction of biological and genetic vulnerability with familial and cultural factors. A clinical high risk (CHR) for schizophrenia is defined as the presence of brief, attenuated, or intermittent psychotic symptoms in non-schizophrenic individuals. The transition to schizophrenia appears significantly more frequent in this at-risk population than in the general population. Moreover, the ability to attribute mental states to others, known as mentalizing or theory of mind, and its neural correlates found in individuals with CHR are similar to those described in patients with schizophrenia. We have therefore explored neurofunctional correlates of mentalizing in individuals with CHR vs. healthy controls, in order to identify the differences in brain activation. A neural coordinate-based activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of existing neuroimaging data revealed that three regions displayed decreased activation in individuals with CHR, compared with healthy controls: the right temporoparietal junction, the right middle temporal gyrus, and the left precuneus. These results, combined with those in the literature, further support the hypothesis that abnormal activation of posterior brain regions involved in mentalizing correlates with psychotic symptoms in help-seeking individuals.

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