↓ Skip to main content

Reduced susceptibility to confirmation bias in schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Reduced susceptibility to confirmation bias in schizophrenia
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13415-014-0250-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bradley B. Doll, James A. Waltz, Jeffrey Cockburn, Jaime K. Brown, Michael J. Frank, James M. Gold

Abstract

Patients with schizophrenia (SZ) show cognitive impairments on a wide range of tasks, with clear deficiencies in tasks reliant on prefrontal cortex function and less consistently observed impairments in tasks recruiting the striatum. This study leverages tasks hypothesized to differentially recruit these neural structures to assess relative deficiencies of each. Forty-eight patients and 38 controls completed two reinforcement learning tasks hypothesized to interrogate prefrontal and striatal functions and their interaction. In each task, participants learned reward discriminations by trial and error and were tested on novel stimulus combinations to assess learned values. In the task putatively assessing fronto-striatal interaction, participants were (inaccurately) instructed that one of the stimuli was valuable. Consistent with prior reports and a model of confirmation bias, this manipulation resulted in overvaluation of the instructed stimulus after its true value had been experienced. Patients showed less susceptibility to this confirmation bias effect than did controls. In the choice bias task hypothesized to more purely assess striatal function, biases in endogenously and exogenously chosen actions were assessed. No group differences were observed. In the subset of participants who showed learning in both tasks, larger group differences were observed in the confirmation bias task than in the choice bias task. In the confirmation bias task, patients also showed impairment in the task conditions with no prior instruction. This deficit was most readily observed on the most deterministic discriminations. Taken together, these results suggest impairments in fronto-striatal interaction in SZ, rather than in striatal function per se.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 6%
Portugal 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 56 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 24%
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Master 11 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 11 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 29%
Neuroscience 10 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,699,375
of 24,512,028 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#128
of 982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,895
of 317,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#4
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,512,028 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 982 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.