Computational approaches to schizophrenia: A perspective on negative symptoms
Abstract
Schizophrenia is a heterogeneous spectrum disorder often associated with detrimental negative symptoms. In recent years, computational approaches to psychiatry have attracted growing attention. Negative symptoms have shown some overlap with general cognitive impairments and were also linked to impaired motivational processing in brain circuits implementing reward prediction. In this review, we outline how computational approaches may help to provide a better understanding of negative symptoms in terms of the potentially underlying behavioural and biological mechanisms. First, we describe the idea that negative symptoms could arise from a failure to represent reward expectations to enable flexible behavioural adaptation. It has been proposed that these impairments arise from a failure to use prediction errors to update expectations. Important previous studies focused on processing of so-called model-free prediction errors where learning is determined by past rewards only. However, learning and decision-making arise from multiple cognitive mechanisms functioning simultaneously, and dissecting them via well-designed tasks in conjunction with computational modelling is a promising avenue. Second, we move on to a proof-of-concept example on how generative models of functional imaging data from a cognitive task enable the identification of subgroups of patients mapping on different levels of negative symptoms. Combining the latter approach with behavioural studies regarding learning and decision-making may allow the identification of key behavioural and biological parameters distinctive for different dimensions of negative symptoms versus a general cognitive impairment. We conclude with an outlook on how this computational framework could, at some point, enrich future clinical studies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Impaired reward processing is associated with such symptoms across different psychiatric disorders.
“This is in line with previous literature suggesting that impaired reward processing is associated with such symptoms across different psychiatric disorders.56,61,121–125”
From Investigating disorder-specific and transdiagnostic alterations in model-based and model-free decision-making (2024) · cites this paper as [56]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 121 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Deserno, L., Heinz, A., & Schlagenhauf, F.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Deserno, Lorenz
- Venue
- Schizophrenia Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-08
- Volume
- 186
- Pages
- 46-54
- ISSN
- 0920-9964 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2566426758
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 121
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 0.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Schizophrenia Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Max Planck Society
- German Research Foundation (DFG SCHL1969/1-1, DFG SCHL 1969/2-1)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Keywords
- schizophrenia, negative symptoms
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Cognition Disorders, Computer Simulation, Humans, Models, Neurological, Motivation, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic 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