Action selection in early stages of psychosis: an active inference approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To interact successfully with their environment, humans need to build a model to make sense of noisy and ambiguous inputs. An inaccurate model, as suggested to be the case for people with psychosis, disturbs optimal action selection. Recent computational models, such as active inference, have emphasized the importance of action selection, treating it as a key part of the inferential process. Based on an active inference framework, we sought to evaluate previous knowledge and belief precision in an action-based task, given that alterations in these parameters have been linked to the development of psychotic symptoms. We further sought to determine whether task performance and modelling parameters would be suitable for classification of patients and controls. METHODS: Twenty-three individuals with an at-risk mental state, 26 patients with first-episode psychosis and 31 controls completed a probabilistic task in which action choice (go/no-go) was dissociated from outcome valence (gain or loss). We evaluated group differences in performance and active inference model parameters and performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses to assess group classification. RESULTS: We found reduced overall performance in patients with psychosis. Active inference modelling revealed that patients showed increased forgetting, reduced confidence in policy selection and less optimal general choice behaviour, with poorer action-state associations. Importantly, ROC analysis showed fair-to-good classification performance for all groups, when combining modelling parameters and performance measures. LIMITATIONS: The sample size is moderate. CONCLUSION: Active inference modelling of this task provides further explanation for dysfunctional mechanisms underlying decision-making in psychosis and may be relevant for future research on the development of biomarkers for early identification of 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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".