ArticleSchizophrenia research. Cognition2026
Empathic accuracy in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis: Using a task with dynamic real-life emotional stimuli.
Article in Schizophrenia research. Cognition, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Empathy as a key component of social cognition may be impaired in individuals at ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis. The Empathic Accuracy Task (EAT) was designed to address the dynamic and interactive nature of real-world social interactions. This study aimed to examine empathic accuracy (EA) in UHR individuals compared to controls and to explore the relationship between EAT and traditional empathy measures and social functioning. Methods: UHR individuals (n = 39) and healthy controls (n = 40) completed the EAT alongside the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy, the Faux Pas Test and the Time Use Survey (TUS). Group differences in EAT performance were analyzed, and within-group correlations were examined between EAT scores and the TUS. Additionally, we investigated whether target characteristics (target gender, expressivity, and clip valence) moderated empathic accuracy. Results: No significant differences in EAT performance were found between groups. However, age emerged as a moderating factor, with older UHR individuals showing lower EA compared to younger UHR individuals and controls. Both groups performed better with positive videos and expressive targets. While UHR individuals reported lower social functioning and lower empathy scores on self-report measures, EAT performance did not correlate with these scores. Conclusion: Cognitive empathy appears preserved in UHR individuals, though subtle deficits may emerge with age. The lack of association between EA, self-reported empathy, and social functioning suggests that these approaches might assess distinct aspects of empathy, underscoring the complexity of empathy as an interpersonal process.
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.