Concurrent functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography assessment of sensory gating in schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schizophrenia is frequently accompanied by deficits in basic information processing, such as sensory gating. The sources behind deficient sensory gating in schizophrenia patients are, however, still largely unclear. The aim of the current study was to identify the brain structures involved in deficient sensory gating in schizophrenia patients. Twenty healthy male volunteers and 23 male schizophrenia patients were initially assessed in a somatosensory P50 suppression paradigm using concurrent electroencephalography (EEG)/functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) methodology. The trials consisted of single stimuli or pairs of identical stimuli with either 500 ms or 1,000 ms interstimulus intervals. Not all subjects showed a P50 waveform as a result of the somatosensory stimuli: It was detected in 13 schizophrenia patients and 15 control subjects. Significant P50 suppression was found in the 500 ms trials in controls only. Region of interest analyses were performed for a priori chosen regions. Significant negative correlations between P50 ratios and the BOLD response were found bilaterally in the hippocampus, thalamus, anterior and posterior superior temporal gyrus (STG), and in the left inferior frontal gyrus pars opercularis. However, significant group differences were found in the hippocampus and the thalamus only. This is the first study in which P50 suppression was assessed in schizophrenia patients with concurrent fMRI/EEG methodology. The data support that the STG, thalamus, inferior frontal gyrus, and the hippocampus are involved in P50 suppression. However, of these structures only the hippocampus and thalamus appeared involved in the altered sensory processing found in schizophrenia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".