Transdiagnostic Anxiety-Related Increases in Information Sampling are Associated With Altered Valuation.

Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) Pub Date : 2024-11-06 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5334/cpsy.100
Amy M Rapp, Brandon K Ashinoff, Seth Baker, H Blair Simpson, Guillermo Horga
{"title":"Transdiagnostic Anxiety-Related Increases in Information Sampling are Associated With Altered Valuation.","authors":"Amy M Rapp, Brandon K Ashinoff, Seth Baker, H Blair Simpson, Guillermo Horga","doi":"10.5334/cpsy.100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Excessive information sampling in psychiatric patients characterized by high trait anxiety has been inconsistently linked with alterations in inferential and valuation processes. Methodological limitations could account in part for these inconsistencies. To address this, computational models of inference and valuation were applied to data collected from a transdiagnostic sample of adults with and without an anxiety or compulsive disorder using a version of the beads task with enhanced experimental controls. Participants diagnosed with an anxiety or compulsive disorder (<i>n</i> = 35) and healthy controls (<i>n</i> = 23) completed the beads task with three majority-to-minority ratios of blue versus green beads (60:40, 75:25, 90:10). First, a Bayesian belief-updating model was fit to quantify the iterative process by which new information (bead color) and prior beliefs were integrated to influence current beliefs about jar identity. Next, a parameterized partially observable Markov decision process model was used to parse the contribution of value-based decisions to sampling behavior and included a relative subjective cost parameter, <i>C<sub>sub</sub></i> , for each bead-ratio condition. Higher trait anxiety was associated with more draws-to-decision, most robustly in the 90:10 bead-ratio condition. Only relative subjective cost of sampling decisions, and not inferential differences in weighting of new or old information, satisfactorily accounted for this relation. Specifically, lower <i>C<sub>sub</sub>(0.9)</i> was associated with more trait anxiety and more draws-to-decision. In a condition with high objective evidence strength, transdiagnostic trait-anxiety-related increases in information sampling were explained by a cost-benefit analysis where relatively higher subjective cost was assigned to an incorrect guess, highlighting valuation as a potential treatment target for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":72664,"journal":{"name":"Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)","volume":"8 1","pages":"202-216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545924/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/cpsy.100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Excessive information sampling in psychiatric patients characterized by high trait anxiety has been inconsistently linked with alterations in inferential and valuation processes. Methodological limitations could account in part for these inconsistencies. To address this, computational models of inference and valuation were applied to data collected from a transdiagnostic sample of adults with and without an anxiety or compulsive disorder using a version of the beads task with enhanced experimental controls. Participants diagnosed with an anxiety or compulsive disorder (n = 35) and healthy controls (n = 23) completed the beads task with three majority-to-minority ratios of blue versus green beads (60:40, 75:25, 90:10). First, a Bayesian belief-updating model was fit to quantify the iterative process by which new information (bead color) and prior beliefs were integrated to influence current beliefs about jar identity. Next, a parameterized partially observable Markov decision process model was used to parse the contribution of value-based decisions to sampling behavior and included a relative subjective cost parameter, Csub , for each bead-ratio condition. Higher trait anxiety was associated with more draws-to-decision, most robustly in the 90:10 bead-ratio condition. Only relative subjective cost of sampling decisions, and not inferential differences in weighting of new or old information, satisfactorily accounted for this relation. Specifically, lower Csub(0.9) was associated with more trait anxiety and more draws-to-decision. In a condition with high objective evidence strength, transdiagnostic trait-anxiety-related increases in information sampling were explained by a cost-benefit analysis where relatively higher subjective cost was assigned to an incorrect guess, highlighting valuation as a potential treatment target for future research.

与跨诊断焦虑相关的信息取样增加与估值改变有关。
以高度特质焦虑为特征的精神病患者的过度信息取样与推断和估价过程的改变之间的联系并不一致。方法上的局限性可能是造成这些不一致的部分原因。为了解决这个问题,我们将推断和估价的计算模型应用于从患有和未患有焦虑症或强迫症的跨诊断样本中收集到的数据,使用的是带有增强实验对照的珠子任务版本。被诊断患有焦虑症或强迫症的参与者(n = 35)和健康对照组(n = 23)在完成珠子任务时,蓝色珠子和绿色珠子的多数和少数比例为三种(60:40、75:25、90:10)。首先,我们拟合了一个贝叶斯信念更新模型,以量化新信息(珠子颜色)和先前信念的迭代过程,从而影响当前对罐子身份的信念。接下来,我们使用了一个参数化的部分可观测马尔可夫决策过程模型来分析基于价值的决策对取样行为的贡献,并为每种珠子比例条件加入了一个相对主观成本参数 Csub。较高的特质焦虑与较多的抽样决策有关,这在 90:10 珠子比例条件下最为明显。只有采样决策的相对主观成本,而不是新旧信息权重的推断差异,才能令人满意地解释这种关系。具体来说,较低的 Csub(0.9) 与更多的特质焦虑和更多的抽样决策有关。在客观证据强度较高的条件下,与跨诊断特质焦虑相关的信息取样增加可以通过成本效益分析来解释,即错误的猜测会带来相对较高的主观成本,这就强调了评估是未来研究的一个潜在治疗目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信