Emotion–behavior decoupling in individuals with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Failure in translating emotional salience into effortful behavior is thought to be a core feature of anhedonia and avolition in individuals with schizophrenia (SCZ), but little is known about emotion-behavior coupling in individuals with bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD). In this study, we compared emotion-behavior correspondence in participants with SCZ, BD, and MDD. Forty-two participants with SCZ, 44 participants with MDD, 43 participants with BD, and 43 healthy controls were recruited. A computerized anticipatory and consummatory pleasure task was used to evaluate emotion-behavior correspondence. Clinical ratings of negative symptoms and self-report anhedonia questionnaires were also administered. We found that participants with SCZ, MDD, and BD exhibited different levels of negative symptoms and self-reported anhedonia, as well as emotion-behavior decoupling. In SCZ participants, both desirable and undesirable images elicited lower correspondence between self-reported liking and behavior. In MDD and BD participants, undesirable images elicited lower emotion-behavior correspondence under both direct stimulus presentation and representation conditions, whereas deficits in emotion-behavior coupling under desirable conditions were only observed when stimuli were present. Taken together, emotion-behavior decoupling showed both common and unique patterns in participants with SCZ, MDD, and BD, and showed some associations with negative symptoms and anhedonia across the combined clinical sample. This finding may be helpful for early identification and the development of novel interventions for different psychiatric diagnoses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".