Social Cognition Deficit in Schizophrenia: Accounting for Pragmatic Deficits in Communication Abilities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schizophrenic individuals show impairments in language affecting what is referred to as the pragmatic component of language, typically the processing of non-literal language (e.g., irony, metaphor, indirect request). Such non-literal utterances require the ability to process the speakers utterance beyond its literal meaning in order to allow one to grasp the speakers intention by reference to the contextual information. This paper gives a selective literature review showing that different cognitive processes-specific to language or not-may underlie the processing of pragmatic aspects of language, and particularly of non-literal language in schizophrenia. Indeed, the fact that many other disorders (e.g., right hemisphere lesion, traumatic brain injury, autism) are characterized by pragmatic impairments may reflect a heterogeneous range of underlying functional deficits that have to be determined. Evidence is reviewed suggesting that cooccurrence of a deficit in non-literal language understanding and a deficit in theory of mind may be accounted for by an impairment in context processing associated with a lack of flexibility. Keywords: Social cognition, non-literal language, theory of mind, context, executive function, 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".