↓ Skip to main content

A Metaanalysis of Perceptual Organization in Schizophrenia, Schizotypy, and Other High-Risk Groups Based on Variants of the Embedded Figures Task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
A Metaanalysis of Perceptual Organization in Schizophrenia, Schizotypy, and Other High-Risk Groups Based on Variants of the Embedded Figures Task
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00237
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirsten R. Panton, David R. Badcock, Johanna C. Badcock

Abstract

Current research on perceptual organization in schizophrenia frequently employs shapes with regularly sampled contours (fragmented stimuli), in noise fields composed of similar elements, to elicit visual abnormalities. However, perceptual organization is multi-factorial and, in earlier studies, continuous contours have also been employed in tasks assessing the ability to extract shapes from a background. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using closed-contour stimuli, including the Embedded Figures Test (EFT) and related tasks, both in people with schizophrenia and in healthy schizotypes and relatives, considered at increased risk for psychosis. Eleven studies met the selection criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, including six that used a between-groups study design (i.e., perceptual organization abilities of schizophrenia/high-risk groups were compared to healthy or clinical controls), and five that treated schizophrenia symptoms or schizotypy traits and indices of perceptual organization as continuous variables. Effect sizes and heterogeneity statistics were calculated, and the risk of publication bias was explored. A significant, moderate effect for EFT performance was found with studies that compared performance of schizophrenia/high-risk groups to a healthy or patient comparison group (d = -0.523, p < 0.001). However, significant heterogeneity was also found amongst the schizotypy, but not schizophrenia studies, as well as studies using accuracy, but not reaction time as a measure of performance. A non-significant correlation was found for the studies that examined schizophrenia symptoms or schizotypy traits as continuous variables (r = 0.012, p = 0.825). These results suggest that deficits in perceptual organization of non-fragmented stimuli are found when differences between schizophrenia/high-risk groups and comparison groups are maximized. These findings should motivate further investigation of perceptual organization abilities with closed-contour stimuli both in schizophrenia and high-risk groups, which is pertinent to current initiatives to improve the assessment and treatment of cognition in schizophrenia.

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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 19%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 32%
Neuroscience 10 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 14%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 13 21%
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 05 July 2019.
All research outputs
#14,839,922
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,121
of 29,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,322
of 298,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#326
of 478 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,880 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 298,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 478 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.