↓ Skip to main content

Who “jumps to conclusions”? A comprehensive assessment of probabilistic reasoning in psychosis following traumatic brain injury (PFTBI), and comparison with TBI, schizophrenia, and nonclinical…

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Who “jumps to conclusions”? A comprehensive assessment of probabilistic reasoning in psychosis following traumatic brain injury (PFTBI), and comparison with TBI, schizophrenia, and nonclinical controls
Published in
Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, January 2016
DOI 10.1080/13546805.2015.1127221
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel A. Batty, Andrew Francis, Neil Thomas, Malcolm Hopwood, Jennie Ponsford, Susan L. Rossell

Abstract

The "jumping to conclusions" (JTC) bias has received significant attention in the schizophrenia and delusion literature as an important aspect of cognition characterising psychosis. The JTC bias has not been explored in psychosis following traumatic brain injury (PFTBI). JTC was investigated in 10 patients with PFTBI using the beads task (ratios 85:15 and 60:40). Probabilistic predictions, draws-to-decision, self-rated decision confidence, and JTC bias were recorded. Responses from 10 patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), 23 patients with schizophrenia, and 23 nonclinical controls were compared. Relationships were explored between draws-to-decision and current intelligence quotient, affective state, executive function, delusions (severity and type), and illness chronicity (duration). Groups were comparable on JTC measures. Delusion severity and type were not related to draws-to-decision for either trial. In the entire sample, executive function (reduced mental flexibility) was significantly related to more draws-to-decision on the 60:40 ratio trial. We found no evidence for an elevated JTC bias in patients with PFTBI or TBI alone. The influence of executive dysfunction should be considered by future studies using the beads tasks in patient populations. These findings need to be replicated in larger PFTBI and TBI samples.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 16 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,088,652
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Neuropsychiatry
#219
of 422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,814
of 408,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Neuropsychiatry
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 408,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.