ArticleSchizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
Further clarification of cognitive processes of prospective memory in schizophrenia by comparing eye-tracking and ecologically-valid measurements.
Article in Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare ecologically-valid measure (the Cambridge Prospective Memory Test, CAMPROMPT) and laboratory measure (eye-tracking paradigm) in assessing prospective memory (PM) in individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs). In addition, eye-tracking indices are used to examine the relationship between PM and other cognitive domains in SSDs patients. Initially, the study sample was formed by 32 SSDs patients and 32 healthy control subjects (HCs) who were matched in sociodemographic profile and the performance on CAMPROMPT. An eye-tracking paradigm was employed to examine the differences in PM accuracy and key cognitive processes (e.g., cue monitoring) between the two groups. Additional 31 patients were then recruited to investigate the relationship between PM cue monitoring, other cognitive functions, and the severity of clinical symptoms within the SSDs group. The monitoring of PM cue was reflected in total fixation time and total fixation counts for distractor words. Cognitive functions were assessed using the Chinese version of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) was applied to assess psychopathology. SSDs patients exhibited fewer total fixation counts for distractor words and lower PM accuracy compared to HCs, even though they were priori matched on CAMPROMPT. Correlation analysis within the SSDs group (63 cases) indicated a negative correlation between PM accuracy and PANSS total score, and a positive correlation with working memory and attention/vigilance. Regression analysis within the SSDs group revealed that higher visual learning and lower PANSS total scores independently predicted more total fixation counts on distractor words. Impairment in cue monitoring is a critical factor in the PM deficits in SSDs. The eye-tracking laboratory paradigm has advantages over the ecologically-valid measurement in identifying the failure of cue detection, making it a more sensitive tool for PM deficits in patients with SSDs.
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.