Li Hang, Wang Qi, Hou Wen-Peng, Chen Dong-Yang, Ding Yu-Shen, Zhang Zhi-Fang, Hou Wei-Wei, Sha Sha, Yang Ning-Bo, Bo Qi-Jing, Wang Ya, Zhou Fu-Chun, Wang Chuan-Yue
The National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders & Beijing Key Laboratory of Mental Disorders Beijing Anding Hospital & the Advanced Innovation Center for Human Brain Protection, Capital Medical University, School of Mental Health, Beijing, China.
Beijing Fengtai Mental Health Center, Beijing, China.
Schizophrenia (Heidelb). 2024 Apr 5;10(1):41. doi: 10.1038/s41537-024-00465-1.
The aim of this study is to compare ecologically-valid measure (the Cambridge Prospective Memory Test, CAMPROMPT) and laboratory measure (eye-tracking paradigm) in assessing prospective memory (PM) in individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs). In addition, eye-tracking indices are used to examine the relationship between PM and other cognitive domains in SSDs patients. Initially, the study sample was formed by 32 SSDs patients and 32 healthy control subjects (HCs) who were matched in sociodemographic profile and the performance on CAMPROMPT. An eye-tracking paradigm was employed to examine the differences in PM accuracy and key cognitive processes (e.g., cue monitoring) between the two groups. Additional 31 patients were then recruited to investigate the relationship between PM cue monitoring, other cognitive functions, and the severity of clinical symptoms within the SSDs group. The monitoring of PM cue was reflected in total fixation time and total fixation counts for distractor words. Cognitive functions were assessed using the Chinese version of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) was applied to assess psychopathology. SSDs patients exhibited fewer total fixation counts for distractor words and lower PM accuracy compared to HCs, even though they were priori matched on CAMPROMPT. Correlation analysis within the SSDs group (63 cases) indicated a negative correlation between PM accuracy and PANSS total score, and a positive correlation with working memory and attention/vigilance. Regression analysis within the SSDs group revealed that higher visual learning and lower PANSS total scores independently predicted more total fixation counts on distractor words. Impairment in cue monitoring is a critical factor in the PM deficits in SSDs. The eye-tracking laboratory paradigm has advantages over the ecologically-valid measurement in identifying the failure of cue detection, making it a more sensitive tool for PM deficits in patients with SSDs.
本研究旨在比较生态效度测量方法(剑桥前瞻性记忆测试,CAMPROMPT)和实验室测量方法(眼动追踪范式)在评估精神分裂症谱系障碍(SSD)患者前瞻性记忆(PM)方面的差异。此外,眼动追踪指标用于检验SSD患者中PM与其他认知领域之间的关系。最初,研究样本由32名SSD患者和32名健康对照者(HC)组成,他们在社会人口学特征和CAMPROMPT测试表现上相匹配。采用眼动追踪范式来检验两组在PM准确性和关键认知过程(如线索监测)方面的差异。随后又招募了31名患者,以研究SSD患者组内PM线索监测、其他认知功能与临床症状严重程度之间的关系。PM线索监测通过对干扰词的总注视时间和总注视次数来反映。认知功能使用中文版的MATRICS共识认知成套测验(MCCB)进行评估。采用阳性和阴性症状量表(PANSS)评估精神病理学。尽管SSD患者在CAMPROMPT测试上预先匹配,但与HC相比,他们对干扰词的总注视次数更少,PM准确性更低。SSD患者组(63例)内的相关分析表明,PM准确性与PANSS总分呈负相关,与工作记忆和注意力/警觉性呈正相关。SSD患者组内的回归分析显示,较高的视觉学习能力和较低的PANSS总分独立预测了对干扰词的更多总注视次数。线索监测受损是SSD患者PM缺陷的关键因素。眼动追踪实验室范式在识别线索检测失败方面优于生态效度测量方法,使其成为SSD患者PM缺陷更敏感的检测工具。