The role of affective states in computational psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying psychiatric illness has often been limited by difficulties in connecting symptoms and behavior to neurobiology. Computational psychiatry approaches promise to bridge this gap by providing formal accounts of the latent information processing changes that underlie the development and maintenance of psychiatric phenomena. Models based on these theories generate individual-level parameter estimates which can then be tested for relationships to neurobiology. In this review, we explore computational modelling approaches to one key aspect of health and illness: affect. We discuss strengths and limitations of key approaches to modelling affect, with a focus on reinforcement learning, active inference, the hierarchical gaussian filter, and drift-diffusion models. We find that, in this literature, affect is an important source of modulation in decision making, and has a bidirectional influence on how individuals infer both internal and external states. Highlighting the potential role of affect in information processing changes underlying symptom development, we extend an existing model of psychosis, where affective changes are influenced by increasing cortical noise and consequent increases in either perceived environmental instability or expected noise in sensory input, becoming part of a self-reinforcing process generating negatively valenced, over-weighted priors underlying positive symptom development. We then provide testable predictions from this model at computational, neurobiological, and phenomenological levels of description.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".