精神病早期患者决策过程中的成本评估。

Anna O Ermakova, Nimrod Gileadi, Franziska Knolle, Azucena Justicia, Rachel Anderson, Paul C Fletcher, Michael Moutoussis, Graham K Murray
{"title":"精神病早期患者决策过程中的成本评估。","authors":"Anna O Ermakova,&nbsp;Nimrod Gileadi,&nbsp;Franziska Knolle,&nbsp;Azucena Justicia,&nbsp;Rachel Anderson,&nbsp;Paul C Fletcher,&nbsp;Michael Moutoussis,&nbsp;Graham K Murray","doi":"10.1162/cpsy_a_00020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Jumping to conclusions during probabilistic reasoning is a cognitive bias reliably observed in psychosis and linked to delusion formation. Although the reasons for this cognitive bias are unknown, one suggestion is that psychosis patients may view sampling information as more costly. However, previous computational modeling has provided evidence that patients with chronic schizophrenia jump to conclusions because of noisy decision-making. We developed a novel version of the classical beads task, systematically manipulating the cost of information gathering in four blocks. For 31 individuals with early symptoms of psychosis and 31 healthy volunteers, we examined the numbers of \"draws to decision\" when information sampling had no, a fixed, or an escalating cost. Computational modeling involved estimating a cost of information sampling parameter and a cognitive noise parameter. Overall, patients sampled less information than controls. However, group differences in numbers of draws became less prominent at higher cost trials, where less information was sampled. The attenuation of group difference was not due to floor effects, as in the most costly block, participants sampled more information than an ideal Bayesian agent. Computational modeling showed that, in the condition with no objective cost to information sampling, patients attributed higher costs to information sampling than controls did, Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> = 289, <i>p</i> = 0.007, with marginal evidence of differences in noise parameter estimates, <i>t</i>(60) = 1.86, <i>p</i> = 0.07. In patients, individual differences in severity of psychotic symptoms were statistically significantly associated with higher cost of information sampling, ρ = 0.6, <i>p</i> = 0.001, but not with more cognitive noise, ρ = 0.27, <i>p</i> = 0.14; in controls, cognitive noise predicted aspects of schizotypy (preoccupation and distress associated with delusion-like ideation on the Peters Delusion Inventory). Using a psychological manipulation and computational modeling, we provide evidence that early-psychosis patients jump to conclusions because of attributing higher costs to sampling information, not because of being primarily noisy decision makers.</p>","PeriodicalId":72664,"journal":{"name":"Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)","volume":"3 ","pages":"18-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1162/cpsy_a_00020","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost Evaluation During Decision-Making in Patients at Early Stages of Psychosis.\",\"authors\":\"Anna O Ermakova,&nbsp;Nimrod Gileadi,&nbsp;Franziska Knolle,&nbsp;Azucena Justicia,&nbsp;Rachel Anderson,&nbsp;Paul C Fletcher,&nbsp;Michael Moutoussis,&nbsp;Graham K Murray\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/cpsy_a_00020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Jumping to conclusions during probabilistic reasoning is a cognitive bias reliably observed in psychosis and linked to delusion formation. Although the reasons for this cognitive bias are unknown, one suggestion is that psychosis patients may view sampling information as more costly. However, previous computational modeling has provided evidence that patients with chronic schizophrenia jump to conclusions because of noisy decision-making. We developed a novel version of the classical beads task, systematically manipulating the cost of information gathering in four blocks. For 31 individuals with early symptoms of psychosis and 31 healthy volunteers, we examined the numbers of \\\"draws to decision\\\" when information sampling had no, a fixed, or an escalating cost. Computational modeling involved estimating a cost of information sampling parameter and a cognitive noise parameter. Overall, patients sampled less information than controls. However, group differences in numbers of draws became less prominent at higher cost trials, where less information was sampled. The attenuation of group difference was not due to floor effects, as in the most costly block, participants sampled more information than an ideal Bayesian agent. Computational modeling showed that, in the condition with no objective cost to information sampling, patients attributed higher costs to information sampling than controls did, Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> = 289, <i>p</i> = 0.007, with marginal evidence of differences in noise parameter estimates, <i>t</i>(60) = 1.86, <i>p</i> = 0.07. In patients, individual differences in severity of psychotic symptoms were statistically significantly associated with higher cost of information sampling, ρ = 0.6, <i>p</i> = 0.001, but not with more cognitive noise, ρ = 0.27, <i>p</i> = 0.14; in controls, cognitive noise predicted aspects of schizotypy (preoccupation and distress associated with delusion-like ideation on the Peters Delusion Inventory). Using a psychological manipulation and computational modeling, we provide evidence that early-psychosis patients jump to conclusions because of attributing higher costs to sampling information, not because of being primarily noisy decision makers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"18-39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1162/cpsy_a_00020\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/cpsy_a_00020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/cpsy_a_00020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在概率推理中妄下结论是一种在精神病中可靠观察到的认知偏差,与妄想的形成有关。尽管这种认知偏差的原因尚不清楚,但有一种建议是,精神病患者可能认为采样信息的成本更高。然而,以前的计算模型已经提供了证据,证明慢性精神分裂症患者会因为嘈杂的决策而妄下结论。我们开发了一个经典珠子任务的新版本,系统地控制了四个块中的信息收集成本。对于31名有精神病早期症状的个体和31名健康志愿者,我们检查了当信息采样没有、固定或不断增加的成本时,“决策吸引力”的数量。计算建模涉及估计信息采样参数和认知噪声参数的成本。总体而言,与对照组相比,患者采样的信息更少。然而,在成本较高的试验中,抽取的信息较少,抽中次数的群体差异变得不那么突出。群体差异的减弱并不是由于地板效应,因为在最昂贵的区块中,参与者比理想的贝叶斯代理采样更多的信息。计算模型显示,在信息采样没有客观成本的情况下,患者将更高的成本归因于信息采样,Mann-Whitney U=289,p=0.007,噪声参数估计差异的边际证据,t(60)=1.86,p=0.07。在患者中,精神病症状严重程度的个体差异在统计学上与较高的信息采样成本显著相关,ρ=0.6,p=0.001,但与更多的认知噪声无关,ρ=0.27,p=0.014;在对照组中,认知噪音预测了精神分裂症的各个方面(Peters妄想量表中与妄想样意念相关的专注和痛苦)。使用心理操作和计算模型,我们提供了证据,表明早期精神病患者之所以得出结论,是因为将更高的成本归因于采样信息,而不是因为他们主要是嘈杂的决策者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Cost Evaluation During Decision-Making in Patients at Early Stages of Psychosis.

Cost Evaluation During Decision-Making in Patients at Early Stages of Psychosis.

Cost Evaluation During Decision-Making in Patients at Early Stages of Psychosis.

Cost Evaluation During Decision-Making in Patients at Early Stages of Psychosis.

Jumping to conclusions during probabilistic reasoning is a cognitive bias reliably observed in psychosis and linked to delusion formation. Although the reasons for this cognitive bias are unknown, one suggestion is that psychosis patients may view sampling information as more costly. However, previous computational modeling has provided evidence that patients with chronic schizophrenia jump to conclusions because of noisy decision-making. We developed a novel version of the classical beads task, systematically manipulating the cost of information gathering in four blocks. For 31 individuals with early symptoms of psychosis and 31 healthy volunteers, we examined the numbers of "draws to decision" when information sampling had no, a fixed, or an escalating cost. Computational modeling involved estimating a cost of information sampling parameter and a cognitive noise parameter. Overall, patients sampled less information than controls. However, group differences in numbers of draws became less prominent at higher cost trials, where less information was sampled. The attenuation of group difference was not due to floor effects, as in the most costly block, participants sampled more information than an ideal Bayesian agent. Computational modeling showed that, in the condition with no objective cost to information sampling, patients attributed higher costs to information sampling than controls did, Mann-Whitney U = 289, p = 0.007, with marginal evidence of differences in noise parameter estimates, t(60) = 1.86, p = 0.07. In patients, individual differences in severity of psychotic symptoms were statistically significantly associated with higher cost of information sampling, ρ = 0.6, p = 0.001, but not with more cognitive noise, ρ = 0.27, p = 0.14; in controls, cognitive noise predicted aspects of schizotypy (preoccupation and distress associated with delusion-like ideation on the Peters Delusion Inventory). Using a psychological manipulation and computational modeling, we provide evidence that early-psychosis patients jump to conclusions because of attributing higher costs to sampling information, not because of being primarily noisy decision makers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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