Probabalistic reinforcement learning impairments predict negative symptom severity and risk for conversion in youth at clinical high-risk for psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elucidation of transphasic mechanisms (i.e., mechanisms that occur across illness phases) underlying negative symptoms could inform early intervention and prevention efforts and additionally identify treatment targets that could be effective regardless of illness stage. This study examined whether a key reinforcement learning behavioral pattern characterized by reduced difficulty learning from rewards that have been found to underlie negative symptoms in those with a schizophrenia diagnosis also contributes to negative symptoms in those at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis. METHODS: = 46) and 51 healthy controls (CN) completed an explicit reinforcement learning task with two phases. During the acquisition phase, participants learned to select between pairs of stimuli probabilistically reinforced with feedback indicating receipt of monetary gains or avoidance of losses. Following training, the transfer phase required participants to select between pairs of previously presented stimuli during the acquisition phase and novel stimuli without receiving feedback. These test phase pairings allowed for inferences about the contributions of prediction error and value representation mechanisms to reinforcement learning deficits. RESULTS: In acquisition, CHR participants displayed impaired learning from gains specifically that were associated with greater negative symptom severity. Transfer performance indicated these acquisition deficits were largely driven by value representation deficits. In addition to negative symptoms, this profile of deficits was associated with a greater risk of conversion to psychosis and lower functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Impairments in positive reinforcement learning, specifically effectively representing reward value, may be an important transphasic mechanism of negative symptoms and a marker of psychosis liability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".