4.7 Article

Preserved implicit mentalizing in schizophrenia despite poor explicit performance: evidence from eye tracking

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep34728

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-09-BLAN-0327, ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL*, ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC]
  2. Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Welcome Grant APHP-CNRS)
  3. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-09-BLAN-0327] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Schizophrenia has been characterized by an impaired mentalizing. It has been suggested that distinguishing implicit from explicit processes is crucial in social cognition, and only the latter might be affected in schizophrenia. Two other questions remain open: (1) Is schizophrenia characterized by an hypo-or hyper attribution of intentions? (2) Is it characterized by a deficit in the attribution of intention or of contingency? To test these three questions, spontaneous mentalizing was tested in 29 individuals with schizophrenia and 29 control subjects using the Frith-Happ animations, while eye movements were recorded. Explicit mentalizing was measured from participants' verbal descriptions and was contrasted with implicit mentalizing measured through eye tracking. As a group, patients made less accurate and less intentional descriptions of the goal-directed and theory of mind animations. No group differences were found in the attribution of contingency. Eye tracking results revealed that patients and controls showed a similar modulation of eye movements in response to the mental states displayed in the Frith-Happ animations. To conclude, in this paradigm, participants with schizophrenia showed a dissociation between explicit and implicit mentalizing, with a decrease in the explicit attribution of intentions, whereas their eye movements suggested a preserved implicit perception of intentions.

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