4.0 Article Proceedings Paper

Impairments in perceptual competency and maintenance on a visual delayed match-to-sample test in first-episode schizophrenia

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 238-243

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.60.3.238

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Deficits in working memory (WM) have been reported in patients with schizophrenia, but is a complex construct dependent on several subprocesses, including input representation (perceptual competency) and holding stimuli on-line (maintenance). A Visual delayed match-to-sample task (DMST) was developed to isolate perceptual competency from maintenance during delays. it was hypothesized that patients in the first episode of schizophrenia would exhibit dissociable deficits in both WM domains. Methods: Performance on the DMST was assessed in 57 patients in the first episode of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and 22 healthy comparison subjects. In phase I of the DMST, a complex visual stimulus (target) was followed immediately by a forced choice between 2 test stimuli, and item difficulty (differences between the test stimuli) was titrated until each subject achieved a consistent accuracy (80%-90%) in this no-delay condition. in phase 2, a delay of 4 or 8 seconds with a mask of randomly illuminated pixels was introduced between target and test stimuli; test stimuli were fixed in difficulty level based on phase I titration. Main outcome measures were mean item difficulty attained in the no-delay condition and mean accuracy in matching after delay. Results: Compared with controls, patients attained a lower level of difficulty in the no-delay condition (P = .001) and significantly lower accuracy with delay (P = .002). Conclusions: Deficits in both domains of WM suggest abnormality in the posterior and prefrontal cortexes. These deficits can be observed in a task involving complex visual pattern stimuli using only a brief delay and are present even in unmedicated patients in the first episode of illness.

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

4.0
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