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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cognitive Correlates of Different Mentalizing Abilities in Individuals with High and Low Trait Schizotypy: Findings from an Extreme-Group Design
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00922 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Krisztina Kocsis-Bogár, Simone Kotulla, Susanne Maier, Martin Voracek, Kristina Hennig-Fast |
| Abstract |
Mentalizing or Theory of Mind (ToM) deficits in schizophrenia have been studied to great extent, but studies involving samples of trait schizotypy yield ambiguous results. Executive functions like cognitive inhibition, cognitive flexibility, and agency are all prerequisites of mentalizing, and it is assumed that the impairment of these functions contributes to ToM deficits in schizophrenia. Whether these impairments influence the ToM performance of people with high trait schizotypy remains unclear. Although impaired self-agency has repeatedly been identified in people with schizotypy, its role in mentalizing is yet to be investigated. The main aim of this study was to explore whether deficits in cognitive and affective ToM can be found in high trait schizotypy, and to identify in what way these deficits are related to the positive and negative dimensions of schizotypy. The secondary aim was to examine whether these deficits correlate with executive functions. Based on the dimensional view of the schizophrenia spectrum, an extreme-group design was applied to non-clinical volunteers demonstrating high (N = 39) and low (N = 47) trait schizotypy. Affective and cognitive ToM were investigated using the Movie for Assessment of Social Cognition, a sensitive and video-based measurement. Cognitive inhibition was assessed using the Stroop Test, and cognitive flexibility was analyzed using the Trail-Making Test. Agency was measured using a computerized self-agency paradigm. Participants in the high-schizotypy group performed significantly worse in the affective ToM task (d = 0.79), and their overall ToM performance was significantly impaired (d = 0.60). No between-group differences were found with regards to cognitive ToM, executive functions, and self-agency. Cognitive flexibility correlated negatively with positive schizotypy, and contributed to a worse overall and affective ToM. Impaired cognitive inhibition contributed to undermentalizing-type errors. It was found that non-clinical participants with high trait (positive) schizotypy - especially those with slight executive-function deficits - may have difficulties in understanding the emotional state of others and consequently in functioning in social situations. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 65 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 21 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 36% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 47% |
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 06 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,332,207
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,709
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,263
of 318,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#417
of 599 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. 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 318,386 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 599 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.