4.4 Article

Deficient prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex in schizophrenia using a cross-modal paradigm

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 128, 期 -, 页码 112-116

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.07.016

关键词

Schizophrenia; Human startle reflex; Cross-modal; Prepulse inhibition; Electrocutaneous prepulse; Sensorimotor gating

资金

  1. Lundbeck Foundation Center for Neurovascular Signalling (LUCENS)
  2. Lundbeck Foundation Center for Clinical Intervention and Neuropsychiatric Schizophrenia Research (CINS) [R25-A2701, R155-2013-16337]
  3. Simon Fougner Hartmanns Family Foundation
  4. Faculty of Health Sciences of the Copenhagen University
  5. Lundbeck Foundation [R155-2013-16337] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To investigate whether the typically reported deficient sensorimotor gating in patients with schizophrenia using unimodal paradigms can also be detected by a cross-modal paradigm which made use of an electrocutaneous-acoustic coupling of stimuli. Methods: Twenty-one male schizophrenia patients took part in a prepulse inhibition (PPI) paradigm with an electrocutaneous prepulse and an acoustic startle-eliciting pulse. Their results were compared with those from nineteen healthy males. Results: As expected, the patients showed significantly lower PPI than controls. No associations were found between measures of illness severity and PPI. Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study showing reduced PPI in patients with schizophrenia by using an electrocutaneous-acoustic prepulse-pulse combination. Hence, this study gives further evidence of a modality-independent sensorimotor gating deficit in schizophrenia. Furthermore, as PPI was also lower than usual in controls using unimodal paradigms, results are interpreted in favour of longer processing times of the electrocutaneous prepulse, which probably led to a shorter perceived stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) in the brain.

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

4.4
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