Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29691918›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2018

The relationships among aberrant salience, reward motivation, and reward sensitivity.

Suzanne R Neumann, Richard J Linscott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The relationships among aberrant salience, reward motivation, and reward sensitivity.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Suzanne R NeumannDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-4865-8103
Richard J LinscottDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesChange in reward processing and motivation may mediate the relationship between dopaminergic dysregulation and positive symptoms of schizophrenia. We sought to investigate the measurement of aberrant salience and its relationship with behavioural measures of reward and motivation.

methodsParticipants (n = 82) completed measures of aberrant salience (Aberrant Salience Inventory and Salience Attribution Task), motivation (Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task), and reinforcer sensitivity (Stimulus Chase Task). Hypotheses were tested using correlation and generalised linear modelling.

resultsResults indicated no relationship between aberrant salience measures. The Aberrant Salience Inventory was positively related to effort expenditure for lower less likely rewards and predicted the use of probability alone in decision-making. The only significant relationship between reward and motivation was a positive relationship between gain sensitivity and motivated behaviour for higher more likely rewards.

conclusionsAlthough some support for a relationship between measures of reward motivation and aberrant salience were found, there was no evidence that the aberrant salience measures had concurrent validity. Our results suggest caution is warranted when interpreting measures of aberrant salience.

Indexed as

RewardAdolescentAdultChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivationNeuropsychological TestsPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSchizophreniaYoung Adultpsychometricsreward processingschizophreniaschizotypyvalidity

Identifiers

PMID29691918
PMCPMC6877145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.