Suppr超能文献

一种精神病连续统的语言学方法:临床和非临床幻听者谈论自己声音的(相似和)不同之处。

A linguistic approach to the psychosis continuum: (dis)similarities and (dis)continuities in how clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers talk about their voices.

机构信息

ESRC Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social Science, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.

Institute for Education, University College London, London, UK.

出版信息

Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2020 Nov;25(6):447-465. doi: 10.1080/13546805.2020.1842727. Epub 2020 Nov 6.

Abstract

: "Continuum" approaches to psychosis have generated reports of similarities and differences in voice-hearing in clinical and non-clinical populations at the cohort level, but not typically examined overlap or of difference between groups. : We used a computer-aided linguistic approach to explore reports of voice-hearing by a clinical group (Early Intervention in Psychosis service-users; = 40) and a non-clinical group (spiritualists; = 27). We identify semantic categories of terms statistically overused by one group compared with the other, and by each group compared to a control sample of non-voice-hearing interview data (log likelihood (LL) value 6.63+=< .01; effect size measure: log ratio 1.0+). We consider whether individual values support a continuum model. : Notwithstanding significant cohort-level differences, there was considerable continuity in language use. Reports of negative affect were prominent in both groups (< .01, log ratio: 1.12+). Challenges of cognitive control were also evident in both cohorts, with references to "disengagement" accentuated in service-users (< .01, log ratio: 1.14+). : A corpus linguistic approach to voice-hearing provides new evidence of differences between clinical and non-clinical groups. Variability at the individual level provides substantial evidence of continuity with implications for cognitive mechanisms underlying voice-hearing.

摘要

: “连续统”方法研究精神病学在队列水平上报告了临床和非临床人群中幻听的相似性和差异,但通常没有检查组间重叠或差异。: 我们使用计算机辅助语言方法研究了一个临床组(早期精神病干预服务使用者;=40 人)和一个非临床组(灵媒;=27 人)的幻听报告。我们确定了一组术语的语义类别,这些术语在与另一组相比时被过度使用,并且与非幻听访谈数据的对照组相比(对数似然值(LL)为 6.63+<.01;效应量测量:对数比 1.0+)。我们考虑个体值是否支持连续统模型。: 尽管存在显著的队列水平差异,但语言使用具有相当大的连续性。两组报告的负面情绪都很突出(<.01,对数比:1.12+)。认知控制的挑战在两个队列中也很明显,服务使用者提到了“脱钩”(<.01,对数比:1.14+)。: 幻听的语料库语言学方法提供了临床和非临床组之间差异的新证据。个体水平的可变性为认知机制提供了大量连续性的证据,这与幻听有关。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b934/7713671/34f4dc0ee7c4/PCNP_A_1842727_F0001_OB.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验