Neurocognitive performance and cognitive biases in young adults with schizotypal traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research suggests that neurocognitive deficits in patients with schizophrenia may increase the risk of developing cognitive biases. As such, we set out to determine this predictive relationship as it pertains to the development of a first-episode psychosis. We hypothesized that poorer performance in processing speed would be associated with jumping to conclusions and an externalizing bias. Poorer performance in working memory would be associated with belief inflexibility and jumping to conclusions, and poorer performance in attention would be associated with attention to threat. We hypothesized that all cognitive biases would be associated with subsyndromal positive symptoms, and schizotypal traits would moderate these relationships. Undergraduate students (N = 130) completed the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire, DAVOS Assessment of Cognitive Biases, Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences, and a computerized neuropsychological assessment battery. Processing speed had a small effect on externalizing bias, which in turn affected subsyndromal positive symptoms. There was no moderating effect of schizotypal traits on externalizing bias, but it was significantly associated with subsyndromal positive symptoms. Only the externalizing bias was associated with subsyndromal positive symptomatology, which might be explained by a restricted range and reduced variance in performance as a result of using a university student sample. This is one of few studies that sought to explain the mechanism responsible for the development of subsyndromal positive symptoms in a healthy sample using self-report measures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".