↓ Skip to main content

Similarities and Differences in Decision-Making Impairments between Autism Spectrum Disorder and Schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Similarities and Differences in Decision-Making Impairments between Autism Spectrum Disorder and Schizophrenia
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00259
Pubmed ID
Authors

Long Zhang, Jiulai Tang, Yi Dong, Yifu Ji, Rui Tao, Zhitu Liang, Jingsong Chen, Yun Wu, Kai Wang

Abstract

Although individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and schizophrenia (SCH) share overlapping characteristics and may perform similarly on many cognitive tasks, cognitive dysfunctions common to both disorders do not necessarily share the same underlying mechanisms. Decision-making is currently a major research interest for both ASD and SCH. The aim of the present study was to make direct comparisons of decision-making and disorder-specific underlying neuropsychological mechanisms between the two disorders. Thirty-seven participants with ASD, 46 patients with SCH, and 80 healthy controls (HC) were assessed with the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), which measures decision-making under ambiguity, and the Game of Dice Task (GDT), which measures decision-making under risk. The results revealed that both the ASD and SCH groups had deficits for both the IGT and the GDT compared with the HC. More importantly, in the IGT, participants with ASD displayed a preference for deck A, indicating that they had more sensitivity to the magnitude of loss than to the frequency of loss, whereas patients with SCH displayed a preference for deck B, indicating that they showed more sensitivity to the frequency of loss than to the magnitude of loss. In the GDT, the impaired performance might be due to the deficits in executive functions in patients with SCH, whereas the impaired performance might be due to the deficits in feedback processing in participants with ASD. These findings demonstrate that there are similar impairments in decision-making tasks between ASD and SCH; however, these two disorders may have different impairment mechanisms.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 108 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 27 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 11%
Neuroscience 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Unspecified 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 32 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2015.
All research outputs
#13,754,594
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,715
of 3,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,338
of 274,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#47
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.