Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30041970›Full record

ArticleBiological psychiatry2018

Differential Valuation and Learning From Social and Nonsocial Cues in Borderline Personality Disorder.

Sarah K Fineberg, Jacob Leavitt, Dylan S Stahl, Sharif Kronemer, Christopher D Landry, Aaron Alexander-Bloch, Laurence T Hunt, Philip R Corlett

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biological psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Can you trust this source? Advice taking in borderline personality disorder.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  8. Computational models of subjective feelings in psychiatry.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. A Computational Phenotype of Disrupted Moral Inference in Borderline Personality Disorder.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sarah K FinebergDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. Electronic address: sarah.fineberg@yale.edu.
Jacob LeavittDepartment of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Dylan S StahlYale Child Study Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Sharif KronemerDepartment of Neurology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Christopher D LandryColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Aaron Alexander-BlochDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Laurence T HuntWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Oxford Health National Health Service Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Philip R CorlettDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Yale University · USColumbia University · USNational Health Service · GBUniversity of Houston · US

Funding

Yale University Clinical and Translational Science Award ProgramUL1TR000142 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SHERWIN, ROBERT S · 2012 to 2015
$31.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000142Wellcome Trust 098830/Z/12/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVolatile interpersonal relationships are a core feature of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and lead to devastating disruption of patients' personal and professional lives. Quantitative models of social decision making and learning hold promise for defining the underlying mechanisms of this problem. In this study, we tested BPD and control subject weighting of social versus nonsocial information and their learning about choices under stable and volatile conditions. We compared behavior using quantitative models.

methodsSubjects (n = 20 BPD, n = 23 control subjects) played an extended reward learning task with a partner (confederate) that requires learning about nonsocial and social cue reward probability (the social valuation task). Task experience was measured using language metrics: explicit emotions/beliefs, talk about the confederate, and implicit distress (using the previously established marker self-referentiality). Subjects' weighting of social and nonsocial cues was tested in mixed-effect regression models. Subjects' learning rates under stable and volatile conditions were modeled (Rescorla-Wagner approach) and group × condition interactions tested.

resultsCompared to control subjects, BPD subject debriefings included more mentions of the confederate and less distress language. BPD subjects also weighted social cues more heavily but had blunted learning responses to (nonsocial and social) volatility.

conclusionsThis is the first report of patient behavior in the social valuation task. The results suggest that BPD subjects expect higher volatility than control subjects. These findings lay the groundwork for a neurocomputational dissection of social and nonsocial belief updating in BPD, which holds promise for the development of novel clinical interventions that more directly target pathophysiology.

Indexed as

CognitionCuesRecognition, PsychologySocial PerceptionAdultBorderline Personality DisorderCase-Control StudiesEmotionsFemaleHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermTask Performance and AnalysisAssociative learningBorderline personality disorderComputational psychiatryPrediction errorSocial cognitionTrust

Identifiers

PMID30041970
PMCPMC6218635
OpenAlexW2952988927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.