4.4 Article

Reduced binocular depth inversion in schizophrenic patients

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
卷 53, 期 1-2, 页码 101-108

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0920-9964(00)00172-9

关键词

schizophrenia; perception; binocular depth inversion; faces; censorship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Binocular depth inversion represents an illusion of visual perception, serving to invert the perception of implausible hollow objects, e.g. a hollow face into a normal face. Such inversion occurs frequently, especially when objects with a high degree of familiarity (e.g. photographs of faces) are displayed. Under normal conditions, cognitive factors apparently override the binocular disparity cues of stereopsis. This internal mechanism - a kind of censorship of perception balancing topdown and bottom-up processes of perception - appears to be disturbed in psychotic states. The clinical and neuropsychological performance of schizophrenic patients was assessed using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Positive And Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS), the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI), the Mehrfach-Wahlwortschatz Intelligence Test (MWT-B) and the binocular depth inversion test (BDIT) using pictures with a high degree of familiarity. In schizophrenic patients, the performance in the BDIT differed significantly from healthy controls and from patients with major depression. The schizophrenic patients were more veridical in their judgements in the BDIT. During antipsychotic treatment, BPRS and PANSS scores improved and the inversed faces were seen as more illusionary, driven by an increase in top-down processing. At the end of treatment, there was no significant difference between the patient group and the healthy controls in the score of binocular depth inversion. These findings suggest that testing of binocular depth inversion can detect specific dysfunctions in visual perception and might be useful as a state-marker for psychotic states. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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