[Schizophrenia and performance on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST): deficits and rehabilitation].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a sustained interest in the so-called "frontal hypothesis" of schizophrenia: the idea that clinical symptoms and cognitive deficits characteristic of schizophrenia might be explained by defective function of the frontal lobes. Several studies have attempted to test this hypothesis by examining the performance of schizophrenic subjects on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), a neuropsychological evaluation widely believed to reflect the functional capacity of frontal lobes. A typical finding is that schizophrenic patients demonstrate a tendency to perseverate in producing an inappropriate response in spite of negative feedback. This perseverative tendency resembles the perseveration often seen in patients with frontal brain damage. This article proposes a critical examination of the available evidence linking frontal deficits with schizophrenia via the WCST. As we will show, in most of these studies, only a relatively small number of the available measures on the WCST are made, and consequently many interesting cognitive capacities in schizophrenic subjects have not been adequately examined with this test. These "non-classical" measures will be described and critically examined with respect to their pertinence for further work on schizophrenic subjects. Of particular interest are the "failure to maintain set", which measures cognitive instability, "conceptual responses", which can indicate a certain conceptual capacity even in subjects who show perseveration, and "learning to learn", which can demonstrate a capacity to profit from experience on the test. A second objective will be to critically examine the evidence concerning the capacity of schizophrenic patients to improve their performance on the WCST. To the extent that performance on the WCST reflects the functional level of cognitive capacities important for everyday life, any capacity in schizophrenic patients to improve their performance could have important implications for therapeutic intervention and re-education.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".