What Constitutes the Personal Space in Schizophrenia? Converging Subjective Experience, Brain, and Social Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Raballo et al.1 conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine body-centered spatial experiences in schizophrenia (SZ), specifically focusing on personal space (PS) and peripersonal space (PPS). While aberrant space experience is a recognized aspect of SZ, this study aimed to clarify how PS and PPS differ between SZ patients and controls. The authors found that SZ patients tend to maintain a greater interpersonal distance (enlarged PS) and exhibit a reduced PPS. Here, we comment on the systematic review and meta-analysis by Raballo et al.1 and introduce additional points to enhance the understanding of anomalous PS and PPS in SZ. First, the historical overview is well done; however, several other historical authors who have examined the experience of space in SZ patients in detail have not been mentioned (Figure 1). In addition to the already mentioned Karl Jaspers (1883–1969),2 Klaus Conrad (1905–1961),3 and Eugène Minkowski4 (1885–1972), other notable figures who employed phenomenological psychology (PP) to study the subjective experience of space in SZ include Hans Sexauer (dates unknown),5(p814) Ludwig Binswanger (1881–1966),6(p634) and Paul Matussek (1919–2003),7(S293) among others. Raballo’s study1 would greatly benefit from an in-depth exploration of both the distinctions and convergences between historical and contemporary authors and their studies (eg, Stanghellini et al.8 and Northoff et al.9,10) in relation to the development of psychopathological symptoms in SZ. Broadening the discussion to encompass these authors would offer a more comprehensive understanding of the conceptual and phenomenological dimensions of PS and PPS within psychiatric research. Adopting a psychiatric hermeneutic approach11 could further illuminate the origins of research on PS and PPS in SZ. Both historical and contemporary perspectives underscore that the subjective experience in SZ is marked by an unusual blurring and fragmentation of spatial boundaries between self, body, and world.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".