M59. THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN THEORY OF MIND AND NEUROCOGNITION IN RECENT ONSET PSYCHOSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Deficits in theory of mind (ToM), the ability to infer the mental states of others, are common in psychotic disorders and are associated with functioning difficulties. While ToM is a social cognitive process, several neurocognitive processes are involved when inferring the mental states of others. A better understanding of the associations between ToM and neurocognitive domains could help better target treatment for ToM in schizophrenia. A recent meta-analysis has revealed that all neurocognitive domains are moderately associated with ToM in schizophrenia, but very few studies have looked at these associations in recent onset psychosis. These studies showed associations between ToM and speed of processing, episodic memory and executive functions although few neurocognitive domains have been assessed in each study. The aim of this study was to determine the associations between ToM and the key neurocognitive domains in recent onset psychosis. Methods These results are part of a larger study that aimed to determine the cognitive predictors of return to work or school in recent onset psychosis. Twenty-seven recent onset psychosis patients were recruited for this study, with a mean age of 24.9 years. The clinical assessment included the Combined Stories Test for ToM and the Matrics Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) for neurocognition. The MCCB assesses the key cognitive domains relevant for schizophrenia, including attention/vigilance, speed of processing, working memory, verbal learning, visual learning, reasoning/problem solving and social cognition. Pearson correlations were conducted between the ToM scores of the Combined Stories Test and each neurocognitive domain of the MCCB. Results Correlations revealed a moderate to strong association between ToM and working memory (r = 0.443, p = 0.021), visual learning (r = 0.493, p = 0.009) and verbal learning (r = 0.443, p = 0.021). The correlations between ToM and attention/vigilance, speed of processing and reasoning/problem solving were not significant (p > 0.05). Discussion This is the first study that has assessed the associations between ToM and the neurocognitive domains of the MCCB in recent onset psychosis. This study did not show association between ToM and speed of processing nor executive functions, but rather with working memory and learning. These contradictory results could be explained by the large heterogeneity of tasks used across studies, particularly ToM tasks that often present with psychometric limitations such as ceiling effect. Learning processes highlighted here should be considered in the understanding of the therapeutic response following a cognitive remediation therapy for ToM in recent onset psychosis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".