Cited by 206Schizophrenia research and treatmentHallucinations in medical conditionsMental Health and Psychiatry

Sensory Contributions to Impaired Prosodic Processing in Schizophrenia

Leitman, David I., Foxe, John J., Butler, Pamela D., Saperstein, Alice, Revheim, Nadine, Javitt, Daniel C.·2005·Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Deficits in affect recognition are prominent features of schizophrenia. Within the auditory domain, patients show difficulty in interpreting vocal emotional cues based on intonation (prosody). The relationship of these symptoms to deficits in basic sensory processing has not been previously evaluated.Methods Forty-three patients and 34 healthy comparison subjects were tested on two affective prosody measures: voice emotion identification and voice emotion discrimination. Basic auditory sensory processing was measured using a tone-matching paradigm and the Distorted Tunes Test (DTT). A subset of subjects was also tested on facial affect identification and discrimination tasks.Results Patients showed significantly impaired performance on all emotion processing tasks. Within the patient group, a principal components analysis demonstrated significant intercorrelations between basic pitch perception and affective prosodic performance. In contrast, facial affect recognition deficits represented a distinct second component. Prosodic affect measures correlated significantly with severity of negative symptoms and impaired global outcome.Conclusions These results demonstrate significant relationships between basic auditory processing deficits and impaired receptive prosody in schizophrenia. The separate loading of auditory and visual affective recognition measures suggests that within-modality factors may be more significant than cross-modality factors in the etiology of affect recognition deficits in schizophrenia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.034

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leitman, D. I., Foxe, J. J., Butler, P. D., Saperstein, A., Revheim, N., & Javitt, D. C.
Affiliations
Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research (US)
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-07
Volume
58
Issue
1
Pages
56-61
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2056904033
Cited by
206
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 18
FWCI
4.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH 63434, MH-65350, F1-MH-067339, K02-MH-01439, R01 MH49334, R01MH065350, F31MH067339, R03MH063434, R01MH049334, K02MH001439)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
schizophrenia, affect recognition, prosody, auditory sensory processing, pitch perception, facial expression recognition, negative symptoms, global outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Auditory Perception, Discrimination, Psychological, Emotions, Facial Expression, Female, Form Perception, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Pitch Discrimination, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Speech Acoustics, Speech Perception, Verbal Behavior, Visual Perception, Voice, Recognition, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review