4.7 Article

Psychiatric Symptom Dimensions Are Associated With Dissociable Shifts in Metacognition but Not Task Performance

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 84, 期 6, 页码 443-451

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.12.017

关键词

Cognitive neuroscience; Computational psychiatry; Confidence; Decision making; Metacognition; Psychopathology

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [203147/Z/16/Z]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Distortions in metacognition-the ability to reflect on and control other cognitive processes-are thought to be characteristic of poor mental health. However, it remains unknown whether such shifts in self-evaluation are due to specific alterations in metacognition and/or a downstream consequence of changes in decision-making processes. METHODS: Using perceptual decision making as a model system, we employed a computational psychiatry approach to relate parameters governing both decision formation and metacognitive evaluation to self-reported transdiagnostic symptom dimensions in a large general population sample (N = 995). RESULTS: Variability in psychopathology was unrelated to either speed or accuracy of decision formation. In contrast, leveraging a dimensional approach, we revealed independent relationships between psychopathology and metacognition: a symptom dimension related to anxiety and depression was associated with lower confidence and heightened metacognitive efficiency, whereas a dimension characterizing compulsive behavior and intrusive thoughts was associated with higher confidence and lower metacognitive efficiency. Furthermore, we obtained a robust double dissociation-whereas psychiatric symptoms predicted changes in metacognition but not decision performance, age predicted changes in decision performance but not metacognition. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate a specific and pervasive link between metacognition and mental health. Our study bridges a gap between an emerging neuroscience of decision making and an understanding of metacognitive alterations in psychopathology.

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