Isolating Working Memory Capacity Deficits from Sustained Attention Deficits in Patients with Schizophrenia Using a Single Behavioral Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in our understanding of working memory (WM) suggest that performance on tasks that assess WM confound an individual’s maximum WM capacity with trial-to-trial variations in their attentional control. This limitation regarding one of the most commonly assessed cognitive constructs in clinical psychology raises important questions regarding the true locus of performance deficits found in the assessment of clinical populations such as Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders (SSD). Fortunately, new methodologies have been developed which can isolate and measure these two cognitive traits independently within a single task referred to as a discrete whole-report WM task. Within the task, participants are presented with six colored squares during the initial memory array and must make responses about each item. This design allows for a more detailed assessment of memory performance (0-6 items recalled correctly) which can be used to determine an individual’s complete memory performance on every trial. From this data, a computational model described in Hakim et al., (2020) determines an individual’s maximum WM capacity and their sustained attention capacity, a measure of the probability with which a participant achieves their maximum WM capacity throughout the experiment. The present study administered a whole-report WM task to 26 individuals, 15 with SSD and 11 healthy age-matched controls. Our results suggest participants with SSD were significantly impaired in both sustained attention capacity and maximum WM capacity, though to a larger extent in their sustained attention capacity. Moreover, removing trials where participants reported only 0 or 1 squares correctly significantly reduced differences in performance across the two groups in the whole report task. These results indicate that tracking and removing trials that reflect complete attentional lapses may provide more sensitive indices that better reflect true cognitive deficits.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".