Failed cooperative, but not competitive, interaction between large-scale brain networks impairs working memory in schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A large-scale network named the default mode network (DMN) dynamically cooperates and competes with an external attention system (EAS) to facilitate various cognitive functioning that is prominently impaired in schizophrenia. However, it is unclear whether the cognitive deficit in schizophrenia is related to the disrupted competition and/or cooperation between these two networks. METHOD: A total of 35 schizophrenia patients and 30 healthy controls were scanned using gradient-echo echo-planar imaging during n-back working memory (WM) processing. Brain activities of the DMN and EAS were measured using general linear modelling of the functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Dynamic interaction between the DMN and EAS was decomposed into two directions using Granger causality analysis. RESULTS: We observed a significant failure of DMN suppression in patients with schizophrenia, which was significantly related to WM/attentional deficit. Granger causality modelling showed that in healthy controls, while the EAS inhibitorily influenced the DMN, the DMN exerted an 'excitatory' or cooperative influence back on the EAS, especially in those with lower WM accuracy. In schizophrenia, this 'excitatory' DMN→EAS influence within the reciprocal EAS-DMN loop was significantly reduced, especially in patients with WM/attentional deficit. CONCLUSIONS: The dynamic interaction between the DMN and EAS is likely to be comprised of both competitive and cooperative influences. In healthy controls, both the 'inhibitory' EAS→DMN interaction and 'excitatory' DMN→EAS interaction are correlated with WM performance. In schizophrenia, reduced 'cooperative' influence from the DMN to dorsal nodes of the EAS occurs in the context of non-suppression of the DMN and may form a possible pathophysiological substrate of WM deficit and attention disorder.
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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".