Atypical meta-memory evaluation strategy in schizophrenia patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research has reported that patients with schizophrenia would regard false memories with higher confidence, and this meta-memory deficit was suggested as a neurocognitive marker of schizophrenia. However, how schizophrenia patients determine their memory decision confidence has received scant consideration. This study, therefore, aimed to characterize the extent to which meta-memory evaluation strategy differs between schizophrenia patients and healthy individuals, and how such difference contributes to the patients' meta-memory performance. METHODS: 27 schizophrenia patients and 28 matched healthy controls performed a temporal-order judgement (TOJ) task, in which they judged which movie frame occurred earlier in an encoded video, and then made retrospective confidence rating. Mixed effect regression models were performed to assess the between-group metacognitive evaluation strategy difference and its relationship to clinical symptoms. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, the patients' confidence ratings were correlated more with the recent confidence history and less with the TOJ-related evidence. The degree of dependence on recent history of confidence was negatively correlated with the severity of positive symptoms. Furthermore, by controlling for the first-order TOJ performance, we observed that the patients discriminated correct memory decisions from the incorrect ones as accurately as the controls. CONCLUSION: The present investigation revealed that schizophrenia patients tend to use more heuristics in making meta-memory evaluations, and such atypical strategy is related to their clinical symptoms. This study provides new insights into how schizophrenia patients perform meta-memory processes. Future research could consider examining such metacognitive deficits in light of other cognitive domains in 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".