Medicine (RMH Academic Centre) - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
ItemThe dopamine D1 receptor gene is associated with negative schizotypy in a non-clinical sampleGurvich, C ; Tan, EJ ; Bozaoglu, K ; Neill, E ; Louise, S ; Van Rheenen, TE ; Rossell, SL (ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD, 2016-01-30)
ItemFacial Emotion Recognition Impairments in Bipolar Disorder. A Cognitive Problem?Van Rheenen, T ; Rossell, S (CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS, 2016-07-01)
ItemTaking It at "Face Value": The Use of Face Processing Strategies in Bipolar Disorder and SchizophreniaJoshua, N ; Van Rheenen, TE ; Castle, DJ ; Rossell, SL (CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS, 2016-07-01)OBJECTIVES: Use of appropriate face processing strategies is important for facial emotion recognition, which is known to be impaired in schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar disorder (BD). There is preliminary evidence of abnormalities in the use of face processing strategies in the former, but there has been no explicit attempt to assess face processing in patients with BD. METHODS: Twenty-eight BD I, 28 SZ, and 28 healthy control participants completed tasks assessing featural and configural face processing. The facial inversion effect was used as a proxy of second order configural face processing and compared to featural face processing performance (which is known to be relatively less affected by facial inversion). RESULTS: Controls demonstrated the usual second-order inversion pattern. In the BD group, the absence of a second-order configural inversion effect in the presence of a disproportionate bias toward a featural inversion effect was evident. Despite reduced accuracy performance in the SZ group compared to controls, this group unexpectedly showed a normal second-order configural accuracy inversion pattern. This was in the context of a reverse inversion effect for response latency, suggesting a speed-versus-accuracy trade-off. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to explicitly examine and contrast face processing in BD and SZ. Our findings indicate a generalized impairment on face processing tasks in SZ, and the presence of a second-order configural face processing impairment in BD. It is possible that these face processing impairments represent a catalyst for the facial emotion recognition deficits that are commonly reported in the literature. (JINS, 2016, 22, 652-661).
ItemCharacterizing cognitive heterogeneity on the schizophrenia-bipolar disorder spectrumVan Rheenen, TE ; Lewandowski, KE ; Tan, EJ ; Ospina, LH ; Ongur, D ; Neill, E ; Gurvich, C ; Pantelis, C ; Malhotra, AK ; Rossell, SL ; Burdick, KE (CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS, 2017-07-01)BACKGROUND: Current group-average analysis suggests quantitative but not qualitative cognitive differences between schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar disorder (BD). There is increasing recognition that cognitive within-group heterogeneity exists in both disorders, but it remains unclear as to whether between-group comparisons of performance in cognitive subgroups emerging from within each of these nosological categories uphold group-average findings. We addressed this by identifying cognitive subgroups in large samples of SZ and BD patients independently, and comparing their cognitive profiles. The utility of a cross-diagnostic clustering approach to understanding cognitive heterogeneity in these patients was also explored. METHOD: Hierarchical clustering analyses were conducted using cognitive data from 1541 participants (SZ n = 564, BD n = 402, healthy control n = 575). RESULTS: Three qualitatively and quantitatively similar clusters emerged within each clinical group: a severely impaired cluster, a mild-moderately impaired cluster and a relatively intact cognitive cluster. A cross-diagnostic clustering solution also resulted in three subgroups and was superior in reducing cognitive heterogeneity compared with disorder clustering independently. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative SZ-BD cognitive differences commonly seen using group averages did not hold when cognitive heterogeneity was factored into our sample. Members of each corresponding subgroup, irrespective of diagnosis, might be manifesting the outcome of differences in shared cognitive risk factors.