4.6 Article

Perceptual Measurement in Schizophrenia: Promising Electrophysiology and Neuroimaging Paradigms From CNTRICS

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN
卷 38, 期 1, 页码 81-91

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbr106

关键词

perception; CNTRICS; sensory processes; gain control; integration

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [MH84848, MH61824, MH58262, MH067967, MH052885, MH084828, MH043292]
  2. Veteran's Administration VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center
  3. VA Merit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sixth meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (CNTRICS) focused on selecting promising imaging paradigms for each of the cognitive constructs selected in the first CNTRICS meeting. In the domain of perception, the 2 constructs of interest were gain control and visual integration. CNTRICS received 6 task nominations for imaging paradigms for gain control and 3 task nominations for integration. The breakout group for perception evaluated the degree to which each of these tasks met prespecified criteria. For gain control, the breakout group believed that one task (mismatch negativity) was already mature and was being incorporated into multisite clinical trials. The breakout group recommended that I visual task (steady-state visual evoked potentials to magnocellular- vs parvocellular-biased stimuli) and 2 auditory measures (an event-related potential (ERP) measure of corollary discharge and a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) version of prepulse inhibition of startle) be adapted for use in clinical trials in schizophrenia research. For visual integration, the breakout group recommended that fMRI and ERP versions of a contour integration test and an fMRI version of a coherent motion test be adapted for use in clinical trials. This manuscript describes the ways in which each of these tasks met the criteria used in the breakout group to evaluate and recommend tasks for further development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据