↓ Skip to main content

Slow Binocular Rivalry as a Potential Endophenotype of Schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Slow Binocular Rivalry as a Potential Endophenotype of Schizophrenia
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00634
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guixian Xiao, Kongliang He, Xingui Chen, Lu Wang, Xiaomeng Bai, Liling Gao, Chunyan Zhu, Kai Wang

Abstract

Objectives: Binocular rivalry is a typical example of bistable perception that arises when two monocular images are simultaneously presented to each eye. Binocular rivalry is a heritable perceptual cognitive function that is impaired in patients with schizophrenia (SZ). Despite its potential suitability as a visual endophenotype, binocular rivalry has hardly been studied in the unaffected siblings of schizophrenia (SIB). There is also little research about whether binocular rivalry is a potential visual endophenotype between SZ and SIB. Methods: In our cross-sectional study, we included 40 SZ and their unaffected SIBs, as well as 40 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (HC). All subjects underwent the binocular rivalry test, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and a battery of cognitive neuropsychological assessments evaluating attention, memory and executive function domains. Results: Our results demonstrate that the switching rate in SZ was significantly slower than in HC (p < 0.001), and compared to the SIB, the mean alternation rates were significantly different (p < 0.01). Moreover, there was a significant difference in mean switching rate between the SIB and the HC (p < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between the alternation rate of binocular rivalry and these cognitive tasks and the PANSS scores. Conclusion: The present study shows that SZ and SIB both exhibit changes in binocular rivalry, with SIB exhibiting intermediate performance compared with that of SZ and the HC. This supports the claim that the switching rate for SZ differs from that of SIB and suggests that binocular rivalry may qualify as a visual endophenotype for SZ.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 20 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 33%
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 28 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,070
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,510
of 347,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#201
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 347,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.