Corlett Philip Robert, Fletcher Paul Charles
a Department of Psychiatry, Ribicoff Research Facility , Yale University , 34 Park Street, New Haven , CT , USA.
Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2015;20(2):95-105. doi: 10.1080/13546805.2014.990625. Epub 2015 Jan 3.
Griffiths and colleagues provided a clear and thoughtful review of the prediction error model of delusion formation [Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 2014 April 4 (Epub ahead of print)]. As well as reviewing the central ideas and concluding that the existing evidence base is broadly supportive of the model, they provide a detailed critique of some of the experiments that we have performed to study it. Though they conclude that the shortcomings that they identify in these experiments do not fundamentally challenge the prediction error model, we nevertheless respond to these criticisms. We begin by providing a more detailed outline of the model itself as there are certain important aspects of it that were not covered in their review. We then respond to their specific criticisms of the empirical evidence. We defend the neuroimaging contrasts that we used to explore this model of psychosis arguing that, while any single contrast entails some ambiguity, our assumptions have been justified by our extensive background work before and since.
格里菲思及其同事对妄想形成的预测误差模型进行了清晰且深入的综述[《认知神经精神病学》,2014年4月4日(电子版提前发表)]。除了回顾核心观点并得出现有证据基础大体上支持该模型的结论外,他们还对我们为研究该模型而开展的一些实验进行了详细批判。尽管他们得出结论称,他们在这些实验中发现的缺陷并未从根本上挑战预测误差模型,但我们仍对这些批评作出回应。我们首先会更详细地概述该模型本身,因为他们的综述未涵盖其某些重要方面。然后我们会回应他们对实证证据的具体批评。我们为用于探究这种精神病模型的神经影像学对比进行辩护,认为虽然任何单一对比都存在一定模糊性,但我们的假设已通过我们之前及之后大量的背景研究得到了验证。