11.1 EXECUTIVE COGNITIVE TRAINING VS. PERCEPTUAL COGNITIVE TRAINING FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA-SPECTRUM DISORDERS: TREATMENT OUTCOMES AND PREDICTORS OF RESPONSE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurocognitive impairments are the best predictors of community functioning for individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Cognitive remediation is a psychological intervention designed to improve neurocognitive abilities and community functioning. However, different theoretical approaches have developed without any studies directly comparing them. Additionally, with a movement towards personalizing cognitive enhancing techniques, greater emphasis is being placed on determining predictors of treatment response. The current study is the first to compare the two dominant approaches to cognitive remediation (training of executive skills and training of perceptual skills) and examine predictors of treatment response. 70 outpatients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders were randomized to receive either 6 weeks of executive training (ET) or perceptual training (PT). Electrophysiological activity, neurocognition, functional competence, case-manager rated community functioning, clinical symptoms, and self-report measures were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and 12-weeks post-treatment. There were minimal differences between groups at the post-treatment visit. PT improved EEG mismatch negativity amplitude significantly more than ET immediately post-treatment (d = 0.64), however, the effect did not persist at 12-week follow-up (d = 0.01). Examining long-term effects, at 12-week follow-up, ET increased EEG theta power during an n-back working memory task (d = 1.01), neurocognition (d = 0.64), functional competence (d = 0.67), and case manager rated community functioning (d = 0.53) to a greater extent than PT. Larger P300 amplitude (B = .47) and theta power during a working memory task (B = .34) at baseline were significantly associated with larger improvements in neurocognition post-treatment. Baseline mismatch negativity amplitude was not significantly associated with treatment response (B = .17), and no baseline EEG measures predicted functional outcomes. Both PT and ET improved neurophysiological mechanisms specific to their domains of intervention, however, only ET resulted in improvement in neurocognition and functioning. Improvements in favor of ET did not appear immediately post-treatment but emerged 12 weeks after the end of active treatment. Training executive functioning may prime further cognitive and functional improvements. Executive functions may be more functionally relevant than other cognitive domains and when addressed in treatment lead to better outcomes. Greater P300 amplitude and theta power may be associated with learning-related processes which are important for acquisition and retention of skills during cognitive training programs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".