Does temporal irregularity drive prediction failure in schizophrenia? temporal modelling of ERPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schizophrenia subjects often suffer from a failure to properly predict incoming inputs; most notably, some patients exhibit impaired prediction of the sensory consequences of their own actions. The mechanisms underlying this deficit remain unclear, though. One possible mechanism could consist in aberrant predictive processing, as schizophrenic patients show relatively less attenuated neuronal activity to self-produced tones, than healthy controls. Here, we tested the hypothesis that this aberrant predictive mechanism would manifest itself in the temporal irregularity of neuronal signals. For that purpose, we here introduce an event-related potential (ERP) study model analysis that consists of an EEG real-time model equation, eeg(t) and a frequency Laplace transformed Transfer Function (TF) equation, eeg(s). Combining circuit analysis with control and cable theory, we estimate the temporal model representations of auditory ERPs to reveal neural mechanisms that make predictions about self-generated sensations. We use data from 49 schizophrenic patients (SZ) and 32 healthy control (HC) subjects in an auditory 'prediction' paradigm; i.e., who either pressed a button to deliver a sound tone (epoch a), or just heard the tone without button press (epoch b). Our results show significantly higher degrees of temporal irregularity or imprecision between different trials of the ERP from the Cz electrode (N100, P200) in SZ compared to HC (Levene's test, p < 0.0001) as indexed by altered latency, lower similarity/correlation of single trial time courses (using dynamic time warping), and longer settling times to reach steady state in the intertrial interval. Using machine learning, SZ vs HC could be highly accurately classified (92%) based on the temporal parameters of their ERPs' TF models, using as features the poles of the TF rational functions. Together, our findings show temporal irregularity or imprecision between single trials to be abnormally increased in SZ. This may indicate a general impairment of SZ, related to precisely predicting the sensory consequences of one's actions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".