ArticleNeuroscience applied2025
Using the grip strength effort task to measure reward processing dysfunction in schizophrenia and major depressive disorder.
Article in Neuroscience applied, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effort, timing and choice: a refined rodent effort choice task with excellent sensitivity to dopamine modulators.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Application of the research domain criteria in early-phase clinical development of transdiagnostic neurotherapeutics: A multidisciplinary perspective.Neuroscience applied · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aims of the Reward Task Optimisation Consortium (RTOC) study (Bilderbeck et al., 2020) were to explore the validity, reliability, and feasibility of a battery of reward processing tasks for the development of new treatments for anhedonia. We report our findings from the Grip Strength Effort Task (GSET), an effort-based decision-making task in which participants chose to either perform easy trials that required less physical effort for low monetary reward or hard trials that required more effort for potentially larger rewards. Thirty-seven participants with schizophrenia (SZ), 40 with major depressive disorder (MDD), and 59 age- and sex-matched healthy controls were administered the task across four European sites. 19% of participants (8.5% HC, 27% SZ, 27.5% MDD) were 'inflexible responders' who always chose hard trials irrespective of the reward amount. MDD participants showed less willingness to exert physical effort for high reward than controls, when inflexible responders were excluded, but no statistically significant differences were observed between SZ participants and controls. Across all participants, willingness to exert effort for high reward negatively correlated with measures of anhedonia. Inflexible responders exhibited higher depressive symptoms and higher anticipation of punishment than other participants. Forty-three participants performed the GSET again after 3-5 weeks and moderate-to-high test-retest reliability was observed. Minimal site effects confirmed operational feasibility of the task in multi-site studies. We conclude that the GSET can provide objective behavioural biomarkers of reward processing dysfunction, but further investigation is needed to understand inflexible responding and its implications on the task's design and interpretation.
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.