Continuous performance test differences among schizophrenic out-patients living in high and low expressed emotion environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High expressed emotion (EE) in families reliably predicts relapse in schizophrenia leading to the assumption that high EE stresses patients and is the cause of relapse. Attempts at validating the stressful properties of high EE using autonomic skin conductance measures have been inconclusive. Since memory loaded vigilance tasks are sensitive to stress, we used a memory loaded version of the Continuous Performance Test (CPT) to see if test performance would change in the presence and absence of high or low EE relatives. If high EE was stressful, performance should decline in their presence of high EE relatives. If low EE was protective against stress performance should improve in the presence of low EE relatives. METHODS: The CPT was administered to 41 schizophrenic and 51 normal control participants. CPT testing was conducted in the absence, then presence, then absence of high or low EE relatives. RESULTS: Control participants had significantly greater CPT scores than schizophrenic participants; there was no effect of the relative's presence or absence on CPT performance for either the high or low EE group. Schizophrenic participants from high EE homes demonstrated significantly better, rather than worse, CPT scores than those in low EE homes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings fail to support the notion of high EE as stressor, but show that high EE and low EE patient groups perform a vigilance task significantly differently. We propose that patients from low EE groups may be underaroused relative to their high EE counterparts and that this underarousal leads to less than optimal performance on the CPT.
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) | 0.002 | 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".