Emotionally Neutral Stimuli Are Not Neutral in Schizophrenia: A Mini Review of Functional Neuroimaging Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable evidence shows that schizophrenia patients tend to experience negative emotions when presented with emotionally neutral stimuli. Similarly, several functional neuroimaging studies show that schizophrenia patients have increased activations in response to neutral material. However, results are heterogeneous. Here, we review the functional neuroimaging studies that have addressed this research question. Based on the 36 functional neuroimaging studies that we retrieved, it seems that the increased brain reactivity to neutral stimuli is fairly common in schizophrenia, but that the regions involved vary considerably, apart from the amygdala. Prefrontal and cingulate sub-regions and the hippocampus may also be involved. By contrasts, results in individuals at risk for psychosis are less consistent. In schizophrenia patients, results are less consistent in the case of studies using non-facial stimuli, explicit processing paradigms, and/or event-related designs. This means that human faces may convey subtle information (e.g., trustworthiness) other than basic emotional expressions. It also means that the aberrant brain reactivity to neutral stimuli is less likely to occur when experimental paradigms are too cognitively demanding as well as in studies lacking statistical power. The main hypothesis proposed to account for this increased brain reactivity to neutral stimuli is the aberrant salience hypothesis of psychosis. Other investigators propose that the aberrant brain reactivity to neutral stimuli in schizophrenia results from abnormal associative learning, untrustworthiness judgments, priming effects, and/or reduced habituation to neutral stimuli. In the future, the effects of antipsychotics on this aberrant brain reactivity will need to be determined, as well as the potential implication of sex/gender.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".