ArticleBiological psychiatry2018
Differential Valuation and Learning From Social and Nonsocial Cues in Borderline Personality Disorder.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Reasoning Biases Associated With Psychosis in Borderline Personality Disorder Using Self-Report and Objective Measures.Journal of clinical psychology · 2026Article
- Threading the Needle: Practical Considerations for Merging Theory-Driven Computational Psychiatry With Data-Driven Analytics to Enhance Precision Health at Scale.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2026Review
- Self-other generalisation shapes social interaction and is disrupted in borderline personality disorder.eLife · 2025Article
- A computational signature of self-other mergence in Borderline Personality Disorder.Translational psychiatry · 2024Article
- A second chance for first impressions: evidence for altered impression updating in borderline personality disorder.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2024Article
- A social inference model of idealization and devaluation.Psychological review · 2024Article
- Can you trust this source? Advice taking in borderline personality disorder.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2023Article
- Computational models of subjective feelings in psychiatry.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2023Review
- Article
- How childhood maltreatment alters perception and cognition - the predictive processing account of borderline personality disorder.Psychological medicine · 2022Review
- A Computational Phenotype of Disrupted Moral Inference in Borderline Personality Disorder.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2020Article
- Aberrant computational mechanisms of social learning and decision-making in schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Using reinforcement learning models in social neuroscience: frameworks, pitfalls and suggestions of best practices.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2020Article
- Induced illusory body ownership in borderline personality disorder.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2019Article
- Improving Research Practice for Studying Borderline Personality Disorder: Lessons From the Clinic.Chronic stress (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)Review
- Psychotic-Like Reasoning Styles in Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder? An Experimental Investigation of the Jumping to Conclusions Bias.Clinical psychology & psychotherapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.