Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Working definitions, subjective and objective assessments and experimental paradigms in a study exploring social withdrawal in schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease
van der Wee NJA, Bilderbeck AC, Cabello M, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Saris IMJ, Giltay EJ, Penninx BWJH, Arango C et al.. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2018-06-24
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Social withdrawal is one of the first and common signs of early social dysfunction in a number of important neuropsychiatric disorders, likely because of the enormous amount and complexity of brain processes required to initiate and maintain social relationships (Adolphs, 2009). The Psychiatric Ratings using Intermediate Stratified Markers (PRISM) project focusses on the shared and unique neurobiological basis of social withdrawal in schizophrenia, Alzheimer and depression. In this paper, we discuss the working definition of social withdrawal for this study and the selection of objective and subjective rating scales to assess social withdrawal chosen or adapted for this project. We also discuss the MRI and EEG paradigms selected to study the systems and neural circuitry thought to underlie social functioning and more particularly to be involved in social withdrawal in humans, such as the social perception and the social affiliation networks. A number of behavioral paradigms were selected to assess complementary aspects of social cognition. Also, a digital phenotyping method (a smartphone application) was chosen to obtain real-life data.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
van der Wee, N. J. A., Bilderbeck, A. C., Cabello, M., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., Saris, I. M. J., Giltay, E. J., et al. (2019). Working definitions, subjective and objective assessments and experimental paradigms in a study exploring social withdrawal in schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.020
Vancouver
van der Wee NJA, Bilderbeck AC, Cabello M, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Saris IMJ, Giltay EJ, et al. Working definitions, subjective and objective assessments and experimental paradigms in a study exploring social withdrawal in schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.020. PMID: 29949732.
BibTeX
@article{vanderwee2019-29949732,
author = {van der Wee, N. J. A. and Bilderbeck, A. C. and Cabello, M. and Ayuso-Mateos, J. L. and Saris, I. M. J. and Giltay, E. J. and Penninx, B. W. J. H. and Arango, C. and others},
title = {{Working definitions, subjective and objective assessments and experimental paradigms in a study exploring social withdrawal in schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.020},
pmid = {29949732},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.020}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The Psychiatric Ratings using Intermediate Stratified Markers (PRISM) project focusses on the shared and unique neurobiological basis of social withdrawal in schizophrenia, Alzheimer and depression.
- In this paper, we discuss the working definition of social withdrawal for this study and the selection of objective and subjective rating scales to assess social withdrawal chosen or adapted for this project.
- We also discuss the MRI and EEG paradigms selected to study the systems and neural circuitry thought to underlie social functioning and more particularly to be involved in social withdrawal in humans, such as the social perception and the social affiliation networks.
- A number of behavioral paradigms were selected to assess complementary aspects of social cognition.
- Also, a digital phenotyping method (a smartphone application) was chosen to obtain real-life data.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29949732) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “connectivity”
187 studies in the library carry the topic tag “connectivity”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 187 tagged studies.