Impairments of response conflict monitoring and resolution in schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been argued recently that the attentional dysfunction in schizophrenia occurs as a result of an inability to inhibit automatic attentional shifts to compelling external stimuli. However, this hypothesis is based on performance on paradigms that require overt or covert shifts of spatial attention. METHOD: We investigated responses to foveally presented stimuli in patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls as they performed unidimensional and bidimensional versions of the flanker task. In both tasks, centrally presented target stimuli were flanked by peripheral stimuli that were either congruent or incongruent with the behavioural goal of the subject. In the bidimensional task, the flanking stimuli could be congruent and incongruent on multiple stimulus characteristics. RESULTS: On the unidimensional flanker task, the behavioural goal modulated the responses of the schizophrenia group such that response times (RTs) to target stimuli that were flanked by congruent stimuli were faster than RTs to target stimuli flanked by incongruent stimuli. However, on the bidimensional flanker task, the responses of schizophrenia patients were no longer constrained by the behavioural goal and RTs to both congruent and incongruent stimuli were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that the attentional dysfunction in schizophrenia may reflect difficulty in resolving multiple and simultaneous response conflicts. These findings suggest a possible role for the anterior cingulate cortex in the attentional impairments associated with 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".