↓ Skip to main content

Metacognition-augmented cognitive remediation training reduces jumping to conclusions and overconfidence but not neurocognitive deficits in psychosis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 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
Metacognition-augmented cognitive remediation training reduces jumping to conclusions and overconfidence but not neurocognitive deficits in psychosis
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01048
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steffen Moritz, Teresa Thoering, Simone Kühn, Bastian Willenborg, Stefan Westermann, Matthias Nagel

Abstract

The majority of patients with schizophrenia display neurocognitive deficits (e.g., memory impairment) as well as inflated cognitive biases (e.g., jumping to conclusions). Both cognitive domains are implicated in the pathogenesis of the disorder and are known to compromise functional outcome. At present, there is a dearth of effective treatment options. A total of 90 patients with schizophrenia were recruited online (a diagnosis of schizophrenia had been confirmed in a large subgroup during a previous hospital admission). Subsequent to a baseline assessment encompassing psychopathology, self-reported cognition as well as objective memory and reasoning tests, patients were randomized to one of three conditions: standard cognitive remediation (mybraintraining), metacognition-augmented cognition remediation (CR) condition (variant of mybraintraining which encouraged patients to reduce speed of decision-making and attenuate response confidence when participants made high-confidence judgements and hasty incorrect decisions) and a waitlist control group. Patients were retested after 6 weeks and again 3 months after the second assessment. Groups did not differ on psychopathology and neurocognitive parameters at any timepoint. However, at follow-up the metacognitive-augmented CR group displayed a significant reduction on jumping to conclusions and overconfidence. Treatment adherence correlated with a reduction of depression; gains in the training exercises from the standard mybraintraining condition were correlated with improved objective memory performance. The study suggests that metacognition-augmented CR may ameliorate cognitive biases but not neurocognition. The study ties in well with prior research showing that neurocognitive dysfunctions are rather resistant to change; the failure to detect significant improvement of CR or metacognition-augmented CR on psychopathology and neurocognition over time may partly be attributed to a number of methodological limitations of our study (low psychopathology and chronicity of participants, low "dosage," narrow range of tests, self-report psychopathology scales).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Unknown 155 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 18%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 33 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 75 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 7%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 44 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 January 2022.
All research outputs
#12,902,092
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,744
of 30,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,406
of 264,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#251
of 550 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 264,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 550 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.