Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:26:17.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Associations of Schizotypy with Prefrontal Function and Psychopathology: “positive” or “negative”? Findings From the Premes Cohort

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

P. Bitsios
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Crete, HERAKLION, Greece
L. Karagiannopoulou
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece
P. Karamaouna
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece
C. Zouraraki
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece
P. Roussos
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA
S.G. Giakoumaki
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

Although Positive (PS) and Negative Schizotypy (NS) are considered distinct entities, prefrontal dysfunction seems to be a common underlying mechanism. According to recent evidence, PS can be divided into Paranoid (ParS) and Cognitive-Perceptual (CPS).

Objectives

To explore NS’, ParS’ and CPS’ profiles of prefrontal function/psychopathology/stressful childhood experiences.

Aims

To examine associations between NS, ParS and CPS with the above phenotype in a community sample.

Methods

140 healthy adults completed the Schizotypal-Personality Questionnaire (SPQ), Symptom-Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90R), Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test (WCST), CANTAB Spatial Working Memory (SWM), Parental-Bonding Instrument (PBI) and Child Abuse/Trauma Scale (CAT). Associations between schizotypal dimensions and outcome variables were examined with separate forward regression-analyses (confounders: age, smoking).

Results

High ParS and NS but not CPS were predicted by high CAT score and low parental-care respectively (Ps<0.001). High NS and high ParS predicted inefficient SWM strategy and increased WCST perseverative-errors (Ps<0.001; R2:0.155 and 0.243) while high ParS also predicted fewer WCST-completed categories and increased total errors (Ps<0.001; R2:0.138 and 0.174). All schizotypal dimensions along with reduced parental-care predicted high SCL-90 psychopathology in all dimensions (Ps<0.001); NS predicted mostly interpersonal sensitivity, depression and phobic anxiety (R2range:0.211-0.426), ParS predicted mostly obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, anxiety, paranoid ideation and psychoticism (R2range:0.257-0.373) and CPS predicted mostly somatization and anger/hostility (R2:0.240 and 0.213).

Conclusions

ParS and NS were similar in terms of prefrontal dysfunction and childhood life experiences although they differed in their clinical psychopathology patterns. CPS seems to be a 'less severe” form of schizotypy in terms of prefrontal dysfunction and childhood experiences with minimal impact on current psychopathology.

Type
Article: 0199
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2015
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.