4.4 Article

Risk/reward decision-making in schizophrenia: A preliminary examination of the influence of tobacco smoking and relationship to Wisconsin Card Sorting Task performance

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
卷 110, 期 1-3, 页码 156-164

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2009.01.012

关键词

Schizophrenia; Decision-making; Gambling; Nicotine; Executive functioning; Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC); Ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Individuals with schizophrenia show deficits in cognitive functioning, as evidenced by deficits on neurocognitive tasks such as the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST). Studies of risk/reward decision-making in individuals with schizophrenia have yielded mixed results, and few studies have examined systematically the relationship between these domains and their relationship with clinical factors. Method: Thirty-two smokers with schizophrenia, ten non-smokers with schizophrenia, nine non-psychiatric non-smokers and ten non-psychiatric smokers were administered computerized versions of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the WCST. Smokers were allowed to smoke ad libitum during designated breaks in order to prevent deprivation. Results: Subjects with schizophrenia performed significantly worse than non-psychiatric controls on both the IGT and the WCST, and performance on these tasks was significantly correlated across subject groups. Among women with schizophrenia, smokers performed significantly better than non-smokers on the IGT. Conclusions: Individuals with schizophrenia perform worse than controls on the IGT, suggesting impairments in risk/reward decision-making. Correlations between IGT and WCST performance suggest a shared element underlying task performance, such as a deficit in set-shifting or perseverance. Further research is needed to establish the relationship between cigarette smoking and IGT performance in schizophrenia. (c) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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