MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413920650 · doi:10.22215/cujs.v5i1.5298

Working Memory Dysfunction: An fMRI Analysis in Schizophrenia

2025· article· en· W4413920650 on OpenAlexaff
Jana Marguerite Bennett, Rami Hamati, Zacharie Saint-Georges, Synthia Guimond, Lauri Tuominen

Bibliographic record

VenueCarleton undergraduate journal of science. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Working memoryCognitive psychologyPsychologyNeurosciencePsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis explores the relationship between brain activation and decreased performance in working memory in schizophrenia. This study analyzed differences in brain activation patterns during a working memory task-based fMRI comparing individuals with schizophrenia to healthy controls. Participants (n = 53) completed a working memory n-back paradigm while in an fMRI where they completed three levels that increased in working memory load; 0back, 1back, and 2back. Python analysis of fMRI data compared brain activation maps of individuals with schizophrenia (n = 22) to healthy controls (n = 31) during the different levels of the nback task. D prime of task scores accuracy was calculated and compared between groups. Through analysis of fMRI 2 group sample maps, individuals with schizophrenia showed greater overall activation specifically in areas of the default mode network (DMN) demonstrating that during working memory individuals with schizophrenia have an impaired ability to deactivate the DMN. Similarly, individuals with schizophrenia showed a significantly lower accuracy and decreased performance on the nback task. Understanding brain activation differences during working memory in schizophrenia is important in understanding the prevalent cognitive deficits and memory impairment symptoms. This can lead to development of specific risk markers identifiable before the onset of psychosis and effective treatment plans targeting memory symptoms. This study contributes to the understanding of the circuitry involved in working memory deficits and can be predictive of greater cognitive decline within individuals with schizophrenia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarleton undergraduate journal of science.Same topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207