Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
ItemConfigural and Featural Face Processing Influences on Emotion Recognition in Schizophrenia and Bipolar DisorderVan Rheenen, TE ; Joshua, N ; Castle, DJ ; Rossell, SL (CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS, 2017-03-01)OBJECTIVES: Emotion recognition impairments have been demonstrated in schizophrenia (Sz), but are less consistent and lesser in magnitude in bipolar disorder (BD). This may be related to the extent to which different face processing strategies are engaged during emotion recognition in each of these disorders. We recently showed that Sz patients had impairments in the use of both featural and configural face processing strategies, whereas BD patients were impaired only in the use of the latter. Here we examine the influence that these impairments have on facial emotion recognition in these cohorts. METHODS: Twenty-eight individuals with Sz, 28 individuals with BD, and 28 healthy controls completed a facial emotion labeling task with two conditions designed to separate the use of featural and configural face processing strategies; part-based and whole-face emotion recognition. RESULTS: Sz patients performed worse than controls on both conditions, and worse than BD patients on the whole-face condition. BD patients performed worse than controls on the whole-face condition only. CONCLUSIONS: Configural processing deficits appear to influence the recognition of facial emotions in BD, whereas both configural and featural processing abnormalities impair emotion recognition in Sz. This may explain discrepancies in the profiles of emotion recognition between the disorders. (JINS, 2017, 23, 287-291).
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).