↓ Skip to main content

Striatal Activity is Associated with Deficits of Cognitive Control and Aberrant Salience for Patients with Schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Striatal Activity is Associated with Deficits of Cognitive Control and Aberrant Salience for Patients with Schizophrenia
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00687
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alan E. Ceaser, Deanna M. Barch

Abstract

A recent meta-analysis has shown that a large dopamine abnormality exists in the striatum when comparing patients with schizophrenia and controls, and this abnormality is thought to contribute to aberrant salience assignment (or a misattribution of relevance to irrelevant stimuli). This abnormality may also disrupt striatal contributions to cognitive control processing. We examined the relationship between striatal involvement in cognition and aberrant salience symptoms using a task of cognitive control that involves updating, interference control, and simple maintenance. The current study included a sample of 22 patients with schizophrenia and 20 healthy controls and used a slow event-related fMRI design. We predicted that (1) aberrant salience symptoms would be greater for patient's, (2) patients would demonstrate increased errors during interference control trials, given that patients may be inappropriately assigning salience to distracters, and (3) striatal activity during those errors would be correlated with aberrant salience symptoms. We found a trend toward a significant difference between patients and controls on aberrant salience symptoms, and a significant difference between groups on select task conditions. During interference control trials, patients were more likely to inappropriately encode distracters. For patients, both prefrontal and striatal activity was significantly greater when patients inappropriately identified the distracter as correct compared to activity during distracter rejection. During updating, patient prefrontal and striatal activity was significantly lower for incorrect than correct updating trials. Finally, as predicted, for patients the increase of activity during incorrect distracter trials was positively correlated with aberrant salience symptoms, but only for the striatal region. These relationships may have implications for treatments that improve cognitive function and reduce symptom expression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 30%
Neuroscience 10 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,306,690
of 22,846,662 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,547
of 7,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#333,913
of 397,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#150
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,846,662 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 397,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.