↓ Skip to main content

Social Cognition and Neurocognition in Schizophrenia and Healthy Controls: Intercorrelations of Performance and Effects of Manipulations Aimed at Increasing Task Difficulty

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Social Cognition and Neurocognition in Schizophrenia and Healthy Controls: Intercorrelations of Performance and Effects of Manipulations Aimed at Increasing Task Difficulty
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00356
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Deckler, Gabrielle E. Hodgins, Amy E. Pinkham, David L. Penn, Philip D. Harvey

Abstract

Social cognition (SC) and neurocognition appear to predict different aspects of functional outcome in people with schizophrenia. However, the correlations between performance on these domains have not been tested extensively and compared cross-diagnostically with healthy controls. Further, some social cognitive measures appeared to have potential ceiling effects, particularly for healthy people, in previous research, so increasing their difficulty is of interest. In this paper we report on two studies wherein we examined the correlations between neurocognitive ability and performance on SC tests. In the first study the correlations between measures of social perception, emotion processing, and theory of mind and performance on a brief neuropsychological (NP) assessment were examined in 179 schizophrenia (SCZ) patients and 104 healthy controls (HC). In the second study, we instructed participants to perform a subset of the tasks as rapidly as possible in order to increase task difficulty, and we examined the effects of those instructions on task difficulty, task psychometrics, and correlations between SC and NP tests in 218 SCZ patients and 154 HC. In the first study, both HC and SCZ manifested a domain specific pattern of correlation between NP and SC test performance. Controlling for group differences in NP performance did not eliminate SC performance differences between the groups. In the second study, no differences in task performance, intercorrelations other SC tests, or test-retest stability were induced by the difficulty manipulation in the samples who performed the tasks with speed demands compared to the performance of the previous sample. These data suggest that simple manipulations aimed at increasing task difficulty may not have the desired effect and that despite consistent correlations between SC and NP test performance, impairments in social cognitive functioning are not fully explained by NP performance deficits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Researcher 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 16 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 08 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,645,475
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#7,003
of 10,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,354
of 330,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#153
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 330,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.