Revealed significant effects of Group (F(1, 56) = 4.2, p = 0.045), Condition (F(2, 112) = 36.1, p[GG

Revealed DM-3189 Necrosulfonamide supplier chemical information significant effects of Group (F(1, 56) = 4.2, p = 0.045), Condition (F(2, 112) = 36.1, p[GG] < 0.001) but no significant interaction between Group and Condition (F(2, 112) = 2, p[GG] = 0.15). Fixation duration was lower for controls compared to patients. Fixation duration was greater for GD than for R (F(1, 57) = 15.8, p < 0.001) and greater for ToM than for R (F(1, 57) = 50.8, p < 0.001) and GD (F(1, 57) = 30.1, p < 0.001). Correlation analyses (Supplementary Information 10) showed that contextual control and IQ did not explain group differences for fixation duration. The ANOVA run on triangle time revealed a significant effect of Condition (F(2, 112) = 234.7, p[GG] < 0.001) but no significant effects of Group (F(1, 56) = 2.2, p = 0.14) and Group by Condition interaction (F(2, 112) = 2, p = 0.15). Triangle time was greater for GD than for R (F(1, 57) = 189.4, p < 0.001) and greater for ToM than for R (F(1, 57) = 267.3, p < 0.001) and GD (F(1, 57) = 169.2, p < 0.001). Finally, exploratory correlation analyses revealed no significant correlation between implicit mentalizing and clinical symptoms (see Supplementary Information 11), and no significant correlation between implicit and explicit mentalizing measures, except for controls in the GD condition (see Supplementary Information 12).Ocular measures. Barplots are presented in Fig. 3 and boxplots in Supplementary Information 9.Scientific RepoRts | 6:34728 | DOI: 10.1038/srepwww.nature.com/scientificreports/(a) Mechanical / Non Contingent 3.0 3.0 Number of actions 2.5 (b) Intentional / Non Contingent2.Number of actions2.1.1.0.0.0.0.1.1.2.*RandomGoal directedToMRandomGoal directedToMControls PatientsError bars represent the standard error of the unajusted mean. * represents the significance of statistical tests that were carried out including covariates (p<0.05). (d) Intentional / Contingent(c) Mechanical / Contingent 3.0 3.* *2.Number of actionsNumber of actions2.1.1.0.0.0.0.5 Random1.1.2.2.RandomGoal directedToMGoal directedToMFigure 2. Results for the contingency/intentionality scale with mean number of (a) mechanical/non contingent, (b) intentional/non contingent, (c) mechanical/contingent and (d) intentional/contingent actions in participants’ descriptions for random, goal directed and theory of mind animations.DiscussionIn this study, we used Frith-Happ?animations to assess the ability to attribute intentions and contingency in schizophrenia. Explicit mentalizing ability was measured from participants’ verbal descriptions of the animations. Because little is known about how individuals with schizophrenia extract relevant cues when observing animated social agents, eye movements were recorded while participants were watching Frith-Happ?animations. We examined whether participants with schizophrenia would show the same modulation of eye movements by the different types of animations as control participants, in the hope of obtaining some insight into implicit mentalizing processes.Explicit mentalizing.As in previous studies, individuals with schizophrenia differed from controls in the way they described the animations: they made less accurate and intentional description of GD and ToM animations. No group differences were found in the R condition, suggesting that this deficit was not just a general decrease in the ability to make verbal descriptions. We found no evidence for hypermentalizing in schizophrenia, as patients did not attribute more intentions to triangles in any co.Revealed significant effects of Group (F(1, 56) = 4.2, p = 0.045), Condition (F(2, 112) = 36.1, p[GG] < 0.001) but no significant interaction between Group and Condition (F(2, 112) = 2, p[GG] = 0.15). Fixation duration was lower for controls compared to patients. Fixation duration was greater for GD than for R (F(1, 57) = 15.8, p < 0.001) and greater for ToM than for R (F(1, 57) = 50.8, p < 0.001) and GD (F(1, 57) = 30.1, p < 0.001). Correlation analyses (Supplementary Information 10) showed that contextual control and IQ did not explain group differences for fixation duration. The ANOVA run on triangle time revealed a significant effect of Condition (F(2, 112) = 234.7, p[GG] < 0.001) but no significant effects of Group (F(1, 56) = 2.2, p = 0.14) and Group by Condition interaction (F(2, 112) = 2, p = 0.15). Triangle time was greater for GD than for R (F(1, 57) = 189.4, p < 0.001) and greater for ToM than for R (F(1, 57) = 267.3, p < 0.001) and GD (F(1, 57) = 169.2, p < 0.001). Finally, exploratory correlation analyses revealed no significant correlation between implicit mentalizing and clinical symptoms (see Supplementary Information 11), and no significant correlation between implicit and explicit mentalizing measures, except for controls in the GD condition (see Supplementary Information 12).Ocular measures. Barplots are presented in Fig. 3 and boxplots in Supplementary Information 9.Scientific RepoRts | 6:34728 | DOI: 10.1038/srepwww.nature.com/scientificreports/(a) Mechanical / Non Contingent 3.0 3.0 Number of actions 2.5 (b) Intentional / Non Contingent2.Number of actions2.1.1.0.0.0.0.1.1.2.*RandomGoal directedToMRandomGoal directedToMControls PatientsError bars represent the standard error of the unajusted mean. * represents the significance of statistical tests that were carried out including covariates (p<0.05). (d) Intentional / Contingent(c) Mechanical / Contingent 3.0 3.* *2.Number of actionsNumber of actions2.1.1.0.0.0.0.5 Random1.1.2.2.RandomGoal directedToMGoal directedToMFigure 2. Results for the contingency/intentionality scale with mean number of (a) mechanical/non contingent, (b) intentional/non contingent, (c) mechanical/contingent and (d) intentional/contingent actions in participants’ descriptions for random, goal directed and theory of mind animations.DiscussionIn this study, we used Frith-Happ?animations to assess the ability to attribute intentions and contingency in schizophrenia. Explicit mentalizing ability was measured from participants’ verbal descriptions of the animations. Because little is known about how individuals with schizophrenia extract relevant cues when observing animated social agents, eye movements were recorded while participants were watching Frith-Happ?animations. We examined whether participants with schizophrenia would show the same modulation of eye movements by the different types of animations as control participants, in the hope of obtaining some insight into implicit mentalizing processes.Explicit mentalizing.As in previous studies, individuals with schizophrenia differed from controls in the way they described the animations: they made less accurate and intentional description of GD and ToM animations. No group differences were found in the R condition, suggesting that this deficit was not just a general decrease in the ability to make verbal descriptions. We found no evidence for hypermentalizing in schizophrenia, as patients did not attribute more intentions to triangles in any co.

Leave a Reply