Cited by 31Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Intact alternation performance in high lethality suicide attempters

Open access
Keilp, John G., Wyatt, Gwinne, Gorlyn, Marianne, Oquendo, Maria A., Burke, Ainsley K., John Mann, J.·2014·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

Suicide attempters often perform poorly on tasks linked to ventral prefrontal cortical (VPFC) function. Object Alternation (OA) - a VPFC probe - has not been used in these studies. In this study, currently depressed medication-free past suicide attempters whose most severe attempt was of high (n=31) vs. low (n=64) lethality, 114 medication-free depressed non-attempters, and 86 non-patients completed a computerized OA task. Participants also completed comparison tasks assessing the discriminant validity of OA (Wisconsin Card Sort), its concurrent validity relative to tasks associated with past attempt status (computerized Stroop task, Buschke Selective Reminding Test), and its construct validity as a VPFC measure (Go-No Go and Iowa Gambling Task). Against expectations, high lethality suicide attempters - the majority of whom used non-violent methods in their attempts with some planning - outperformed other depressed groups on OA, with no group differences observed on Wisconsin Card Sort. Despite intact performance on OA, past attempters exhibited deficits on the Stroop and Buschke. OA performance was associated with performance on Go-No Go and Iowa Gambling, confirming that OA measures a similar construct. VPFC dysfunction may not be a characteristic of all suicide attempters, especially those who make more carefully planned, non-violent - though potentially lethal - attempts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.04.050

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • High-lethality attempters show less delayed discounting and perform better on an object alternation task, indicating greater executive control and response organization.

    “High-lethality attempters have greater impairment of reward learning, hampering the search for alternative solutions (34), but they have less delayed discounting (i.e., they can suppress the desire for immediate satisfaction in favor of delayed reward) (35) and perform better on an object alternation task, indicating greater executive control and response organization (25).”

    From A brain-centric model of suicidal behavior (2020) · cites this paper as [25]

  • High-lethality suicide attempters are generally more deliberate and planned than low-lethality attempters.

    “Decision making differs in high-lethality suicide attempters relative to low-lethality attempters because the former are generally more deliberate and planned.”

    From A brain-centric model of suicidal behavior (2020) · cites this paper as [25]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Oquendo MA Halberstam B Mann JJ First M Risk factors of suicidal behavior: The utility and limitations of research instruments. Standardized evaluation in clinical practice: Review of psychiatry, Volume 22 2003 103 30 American Psychiatric Publishing Washington, DC
  2. Spitzer RL Williams JBW Gibbon M First MB Instruction manual for the structured clinical interview for the DSM-IV (SCID-P) 1990 American Psychiatric Press Washington, D.C.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keilp, J. G., Wyatt, G., Gorlyn, M., Oquendo, M. A., Burke, A. K., & John Mann, J.
Affiliations
New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Keilp, John G.
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
219
Issue
1
Pages
129-136
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1978106100
Cited by
31
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH62155, R01MH059710, MH48514, R01MH062155, R01MH048514, MH 59710, P50MH062185)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
suicide attempters, ventral prefrontal cortex, suicide lethality, depression, executive function, Stroop task, go/no-go task, Iowa Gambling Task, task validity
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition Disorders, Depression, Female, Games, Experimental, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Suicide, Attempted, Prefrontal Cortex, Young Adult

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