Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-24hb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T05:07:05.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Empathy in individuals clinically at risk for psychosis: Brain and behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Birgit Derntl*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical School, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, Jülich Aachen Research Alliance (JARA), Translational Brain Medicine, Germany and Institute for Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Research Center Jülich, Jülich, Aachen, Germany
Tanja Maria Michel
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Region of Southern Denmark, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Pamela Prempeh
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical School, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Volker Backes
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical School, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany and Jülich Aachen Research Alliance (JARA), Translational Brain Medicine, Germany
Andreas Finkelmeyer
Affiliation:
Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle Biomedicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
Frank Schneider
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical School, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany and Jülich Aachen Research Alliance (JARA), Translational Brain Medicine, Germany
Ute Habel
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical School, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany and Jülich Aachen Research Alliance (JARA), Translational Brain Medicine, Germany
*
Birgit Derntl, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. Email: bderntl@ukaachen.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Empathy is a basic human ability, and patients with schizophrenia show dysfunctional empathic abilities on the behavioural and neural level.

Aims

These dysfunctions may precede the onset of illness; thus, it seems mandatory to examine the empathic abilities in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis.

Method

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we measured 15 individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR group) and compared their empathy performance with 15 healthy volunteers and 15 patients with schizophrenia.

Results

Behavioural data analysis indicated no significant deficit in the CHR group. Functional data analysis revealed hyperactivation in a frontotemporoparietal network including the amygdala in the CHR group compared with the other two groups.

Conclusions

Despite normal behavioural performance, the CHR group activated the neural empathy network differently and specifically showed hyperactivation in regions critical for emotion processing. This could suggest a compensatory mechanism reflecting emotional hypersensitivity or dysfunctional emotion regulation. Further investigations should clarify the role of these neural alterations for development and exacerbation of psychosis.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2015 

In schizophrenia, impairments in social cognition as well as metacognition result in poor social functioning Reference Fett, Viechtbauer, Dominguez, Penn, van Os and Krabbendam1 and act as a mediator between neurocognition and real-world functioning. Reference Sergi, Rassovsky, Widmark, Reist, Erhart and Braff2,Reference Lysaker, Shea, Buck, Dimaggio, Nicolò and Procacci3 Empathy, the ability to infer and share another's internal emotional states, plays a pivotal role in social interaction Reference Kohut4,Reference Preston and de Waal5 and is a multidimensional phenomenon; Decety & Jackson Reference Decety and Jackson6 postulated that at least three core components can be identified: (a) recognition of emotions in oneself and others; (b) an affective component, i.e. the ability to experience and share similar emotions as others (affective responsiveness, AR); and (c) a cognitive component, i.e. the ability to take the perspective of another person and infer their feelings (emotional perspective-taking, EPT). Persons with schizophrenia show substantial deficits in nearly every domain also in empathy, with impairments in emotion recognition (ER) being investigated most frequently (for meta-analysis Reference Kohler, Walker, Martin, Healey and Moberg7 ). However, a thorough investigation of all three components demonstrated that individuals with schizophrenia suffer from a significant deficit in every single domain, Reference Derntl, Finkelmeyer, Toygar, Hülsmann, Schneider and Falkenberg8 thus indicating a much broader emotional deficit. Neuroimaging research extended the behavioural findings by highlighting functional abnormalities during empathy-related tasks in individuals with schizophrenia, Reference Derntl, Finkelmeyer, Voss, Eickhoff, Kellermann and Schneider9,Reference Harvey, Zaki, Lee, Ochsner and Green10 which importantly were further associated with social community functioning. Reference Smith, Schroeder, Abram, Goldman, Parrish and Wang11 Compared with the plethora of studies addressing socio-emotional processes in schizophrenia, relatively little is known about empathy in people at risk for psychosis. Few studies investigated emotional abilities in persons genetically at risk for schizophrenia and observed significant behavioural deficits; Reference Eack, Mermon, Montrose, Miewald, Gur and Gur12 however, mixed results were reported regarding neural activation compared with controls (amygdala hypofunction; Reference Habel, Klein, Shah, Toni, Zilles and Falkai13 neural hyperactivation; Reference Van Buuren, Vink, Rapcencu and Kahn14 no difference Reference Rasetti, Mattay, Wiedholz, Kolachana, Hariri and Callicott15 ). Even less is known in patients at clinical high risk for psychosis. Behavioural studies in such patients addressing facial or vocal affect processing reported mixed findings: ranging from a rather general impairment Reference Addington, Penn, Woods, Addington and Perkins16 to emotion-specific deficits Reference Amminger, Schäfer, Papageorgiou, Klier, Schlögelhofer and Mossaheb17,Reference Kohler, Richard, Brensinger, Borgmann-Winter, Conroy and Moberg18 or no difference. Reference Addington, Piskulic, Perkins, Woods, Liu and Penn19 Seiferth et al Reference Seiferth, Pauly, Habel, Kellermann, Shah and Ruhrmann20 investigated neural activation during ER in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis and observed frontolimbic hyperactivation particularly during neutral face-processing. Notably, there is a lack of studies investigating cognitive and affective empathy in this group of patients. This seems particularly surprising, given the evidence of a significant association between empathy and social functioning in individuals with schizophrenia Reference Smith, Schroeder, Abram, Goldman, Parrish and Wang11,Reference Smith, Horan, Karpouzian, Abram, Cobia and Csernansky21 and consistent findings on social interaction difficulties acting as a precursor of schizophrenia. Reference Cannon22

The aim of the present study therefore was to investigate the behavioural and neural substrates of empathy in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis and matched controls, enabling more detailed analyses of emotional competencies, their interactions and possible neural dysfunctions in this preclinical group. In addition to group differences, we also analysed potential associations between behavioural performance, neural activation and clinical parameters. Based on inconsistent results regarding ER and previous neuroimaging data in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis, Reference Seiferth, Pauly, Habel, Kellermann, Shah and Ruhrmann20 we expected unimpaired recognition accuracy but dysfunctional neural activation. Additionally, to further examine differences and similarities in empathy between individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis and patients with borderline personality disorder, behavioural and neural data of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis in affective and cognitive empathy was compared with previously published data on individuals with schizophrenia. Reference Derntl, Finkelmeyer, Voss, Eickhoff, Kellermann and Schneider9

Method

Sample

A total of 15 patients at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR group) and 15 healthy controls (CON group) were included. For comparison, we relied on data of 15 individuals with schizophrenia (SZP group) that have been published previously. Reference Derntl, Finkelmeyer, Voss, Eickhoff, Kellermann and Schneider9 Due to excessive head movement, functional data of two CHR group participants were excluded from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data analysis. All patients were White, native German-speaking and were matched for age, parental education and neurocognitive function.

The CHR group were recruited through clinical services at the Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DPPP), RWTH Aachen University. Experienced psychiatrists identified clinical risk for psychosis and diagnostic inclusion criteria were assessed by the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes and the Scale of Prodromal Symptoms (SIPS/SOPS); Reference McGlashan, Miller and Woods23 positive and negative symptoms were also assessed with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Reference Kay, Fiszbein and Opler24 Based on a two-phase approach, Reference Schultze-Lutter, Ruhrmann, Hoyer, Klosterkötter and Leweke25 participants had to fulfil the criteria for a late initial prodromal state. Attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS) and the Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms (BLIPS) were applied as criteria; thus symptoms of clinical high risk of psychosis were below criteria for a full-blown manifest psychotic episode. Social and occupational functioning (Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale, SOFAS Reference Goldman, Skodol and Lave26 ) and depressive symptoms (Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, MADRS Reference Montgomery and Åsberg27 ) were assessed in the CHR group. Four CHR participants had a familial risk for psychosis besides clinical symptoms. Three CHR patients were taking atypical agents (1 aripiprazole, 1 quetiapine and 1 risperidone) and two were on antidepressive medication (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors).

The SZP group was recruited from in- and out-patient units of the DPPP, received atypical antipsychotics and no other medication. Symptom severity was assessed with standardised scales (PANSS Reference Kay, Fiszbein and Opler24 ). Exclusion criteria for all participants included substance abuse within the last 6 months, left-handedness and any other psychiatric or neurological illness based on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Disorders. Reference Wittchen, Zaudig and Fydrich28

Moreover, to assess self-reported empathic abilities the German version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index Reference Paulus29 was administered and participants were asked to answer 16 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Does not describe me well’ to ‘Describes me very well’. Additionally, all participants completed neuropsychological tests, tapping premorbid crystallised verbal intelligence (Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Intelligenztest, MWT-B), Reference Lehrl30 information processing speed and executive functions (Trail Making Tests, versions A and B) Reference Reitan31 as well as working memory (digit spans from WAIS-IV). Reference Petermann32 Demographic, clinical and neuropsychological characteristics are shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Mean and standard deviation (in parentheses) of sociodemographic and neuropsychological characteristics of participants with clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR), healthy controls (CON), and patients with schizophrenia (SZP)

CHR (n = 15) CON (n = 15) SZP (n = 15) P
Gender, females:males 3:12 3:12 5:10
Age, years 27.1 (7.3) 29.0 (9.8) 34.2 (9.1) 0.086
Education, years 13.3 (2.3) 15.8 (2.4) 12.4 (3.5) 0.237
Education (father), years 13.1 (2.2) 12.7 (3.7) 11.2 (3.7) 0.202
Education (mother), years 12.0 (2.4) 12.3 (3.9) 10.5 (3.8) 0.480
SIPS/SOPS score
    Positive 8.1 (2.8)
    Negative 14.1 (4.6)
    Disorganised 3.8 (1.7)
    General 7.0 (3.0)
PANSS total score 52.6 (13.4) 52.0 (7.8)
    Positive 12.5 (3.7) 12.3 (3.8)
    Negative 13.6 (5.5) 14.6 (3.7)
    Global 26.5 (7.1) 24.5 (4.4)
SOFAS score 62.8 (11.4)
MADRS score 19.9 (4.4)
MWT-B score 27.2 (4.1) 29.7 (4.2) 30.2 (3.3) 0.112
TMT-A, sec 23.9 (8.8) 22.9 (6.3) 28.9 (9.0) 0.292
TMT-B, sec 41.8 (12.8) 46.3 (15.9) 54.6 (24.8) 0.237
Digit span score 14.0 (4.2) 15.3 (2.8) 14.5 (2.8) 0.565

SIPS/SOPS, Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes/Scale of Prodromal Symptoms; PANSS, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale; SOFAS, Social and occupational functioning scale; MADRS, Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale; MWT-B, Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Intelligenztest-B measuring premorbid verbal crystallised intelligence; TMT, Trail Making Test measuring executive functions; digit span, assessing working memory.

Groups did not differ significantly in age, education, parental education and neuropsychological performance.

After complete description of the study to the participants, written informed consent was obtained. All participants were paid for their participation. The ethics committee of RWTH Aachen University approved the study.

Functional tasks

We used three tasks tapping each empathy component separately, which have been used before in neuroimaging studies. Reference Derntl, Finkelmeyer, Voss, Eickhoff, Kellermann and Schneider9 Every response was recorded and the sum of correct responses added up to an accuracy score for each task that was used for statistical analyses. Analysis of internal consistency across the whole sample revealed Cronbach's alpha of 0.649 (ER), 0.839 (EPT) and 0.882 (AR), indicating acceptable to good reliability.

Emotion recognition

Thirty photographs of White faces depicting five basic emotions (happiness, sadness, anger, fear and disgust) and neutral expressions were presented. Stimuli were selected from a standardised stimulus set. Reference Gur, Sara, Hagendoorn, Marom, Hughett and Macy33 Participants were instructed to choose the correct emotion from two possibilities via button press. Stimuli were presented maximally for 5 s with a randomised, variable interstimulus interval ranging from 8 s to 12 s.

Emotional perspective-taking

Participants viewed 35 scenes showing two White people involved in social interaction thereby portraying the emotions described above. The face of one person was masked, and participants were asked to infer the emotional expression of the masked face. Stimuli were shown for 4 s and participants responded immediately afterwards by selecting between two different facial expressions that were taken from the stimulus pool described above.

Affective responsiveness

We presented 35 short written sentences describing real-life situations inducing one of the emotions described above. Participants were asked to imagine how they would feel if they were experiencing those situations. Sentences were presented for 4 s and response format was the same as for EPT.

All stimuli were presented by goggles (VisuaStimDigital, Resonance Technology Inc, Los Angeles, California, USA). Presentation of images, recording of responses and synchronisation with the scanner was achieved using Presentation (Neurobehavioral Systems, Inc, Albany, California, USA).

Behavioural data analysis

Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS 20.0 and level of significance was set at P = 0.05. Correct responses of each empathy task acquired during scanning were analysed by mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVAs) with task as within-participant factor and group as between-participant factor. Bonferroni corrected P-values are reported for all post hoc comparisons.

Group differences in self-report data were assessed by univariate ANOVAs. For the self-report empathy scale we used sums of the four subscales (each made up of four different items) for further analyses. Regarding the statistical analysis of neuropsychological tests, we relied on the sum of correctly marked words in the MWT-B. For the TMT-A and TMT-B we used reaction time to finish the tasks and regarding digit span we relied on the sum of the correct forward and backward trials.

Correlations between accuracy measures and self-report scores were computed using Pearson correlations, except for AR where performance scores were not normally distributed (here Spearman's rank correlations were applied). For the CHR group, additional analyses investigating potential associations between clinical parameters and behavioural measures as well as self-report scores were performed by Pearson correlations, again with the exception of analyses involving AR scores. All correlation significance tests were two-tailed and corrected for multiple testing.

fMRI acquisition parameters and data processing

All participants were examined with a 3T whole-body scanner (Philips, Best, The Netherlands) at the Medical Faculty of RWTH Aachen University. Functional imaging was performed by gradient-recalled EPI; 35 oblique axial slices were acquired by asymmetric k-space sampling (repetition time = 2200 ms, echo time = 31 ms).

Functional data were pre-processed by SPM8 (www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/spm8.html). Images were slice-timing corrected, realigned and normalised into the standardised stereotactic space. Functional data-sets were spatially smoothed by an isotropic Gaussian kernel with a full-width-at-half- maximum of 8 mm. Prior to pre-processing, a signal artefact correction algorithm was employed to reduce large, slice-wise signal fluctuations in the fMRI time-series as previously reported. Reference Derntl, Finkelmeyer, Voss, Eickhoff, Kellermann and Schneider9

fMRI data analysis

For this event-related design, each stimulus type was modelled with a separate regressor by a delta function convolved with the hemodynamic response function. For EPT and AR the initial task stimulus (scene/sentence) and the response option were modelled with separate regressors. First-level models included motion parameters as regressors of no interest.

To detect group differences, contrast images from all participants for each task were included in a second-level random effects analysis. We performed a 3 (group)×3 (task) mixed effects ANOVA and significant F-contrasts were explored by subsequent post hoc t-contrasts. For EPT and AR only activation related to the initial task stimulus was analysed at the second level.

For whole-brain analyses we applied a correction for multiple comparisons at the cluster-level based on Monte-Carlo simulations by AlphaSim. Reference Cox34 According to 1000 simulations based on a cluster-defining threshold of P<0.001 (uncorrected) and the spatial properties of the residual image an extent threshold of 55 contiguous voxels sufficed to comply with a family-wise error of P<0.05. All results were depicted at this threshold.

Region of interest (ROI) analysis

We performed an ROI analysis for the amygdala region due to its role in emotion processing and previous studies observing functional abnormalities of the amygdala in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis Reference Seiferth, Pauly, Habel, Kellermann, Shah and Ruhrmann20 and those with schizophrenia. Reference Derntl, Finkelmeyer, Voss, Eickhoff, Kellermann and Schneider9 Based on previous results, Reference Amunts, Kedo, Kindler, Pieperhoff, Mohlberg and Shah35 values for both amygdala ROIs were extracted drawing two spheres (10 mm) centred at [x,y,z: ±20, 0, −20]. A three-way ANOVA was applied with group as between-participant factor, and task and laterality as repeated factors.

Corollary analyses

Pearson correlations were performed with accuracy data from ER and EPT and mean amygdala parameter estimates (taken from the ROI analysis). Spearman's rank correlation was used for correlation analyses between amygdala activation and AR scores. For the CHR group, additional Pearson correlations between amygdala activation and clinical parameters (SIPS/SOPS, PANSS, MADRS, SOFAS) were conducted.

Results

Behavioural performance

Analysis of percent correct demonstrated a significant task effect (F(2,40) = 17.141, P<0.001) and a significant group effect (F(2,40) = 4.156, P = 0.025), but no task×group interaction (F(2,40) = 1.568, P = 0.194). Bonferroni corrected post hoc tests of the task effect revealed significantly worse performance in EPT compared with AR (P<0.001) and ER (P = 0.003), whereas performance in ER did not differ significantly from AR (P = 0.069). Regarding the group effect, the CON group outperformed the SZP group (P = 0.025), whereas no difference emerged between the other groups (CON-CHR: P = 1.000; CHR-SZP: P = 0.200).

TABLE 2 Performance accuracy of the empathy tasks (percent correct) and self-reported empathic abilities for each group (means and standard deviations)

CHR (n = 15) CON (n = 15) SZP (n = 15)
Emotion recognition 89.5 (3.3) 94.0 (4.1) 88.9 (6.7)
Perspective-taking 87.1 (10.1) 89.6 (5.7) 79.0 (13.5)
Affective responsiveness 96.5 (5.0) 97.2 (2.9) 88.4 (16.7)
SPF fantasy 11.5 (3.2) 14.4 (3.2) 12.8 (2.4)
SPF perspective-taking 13.8 (3.2) 15.4 (2.8) 15.3 (2.4)
SPF empathic concern 13.6 (2.0) 14.2 (3.3) 13.7 (3.2)
SPF distress 11.0 (3.7) 8.5 (2.4) 11.4 (2.8)

CHR, individuals at high clinical risk for psychosis; CON, healthy controls; SZP, individuals with schizophrenia; SPF, Saarbrückener Persönlichkeitsfragebogen, German version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI).

Figure DS1 in an online data supplement to this paper illustrates performance on the empathy tasks across groups, and Table 2 gives details on performance accuracy.

Empathy questionnaire

Direct comparison of self-report scores demonstrated significant group effects for the fantasy scale (F(2,40) = 3.340, P = 0.047) and the distress scale (F(2,40) = 3.525, P = 0.040), whereas no other significant difference emerged (Ps>0.269). Post hoc analyses showed that the CHR group had significantly lower fantasy scores than the CON group (P = 0.043) but did not differ from the SZP group (P = 0.825) who also did not differ from the CON group (P = 0.569). Regarding the distress scale, post hoc tests revealed no significant difference between the groups (Ps>0.071). Please see Table 2 for means and standard deviations for each group.

Functional data

Separate group analyses for the CHR, SZP and CON groups showed activation of a widespread cortical-subcortical network including frontal regions, orbitofrontal cortex, temporal gyri, fusiform gyri, inferior parietal cortex and cingulate cortex across all tasks. Please note that differences between the SZP and CON groups will not be reported since they were not the focus of the current paper and resemble findings from a previously published study. Reference Derntl, Finkelmeyer, Voss, Eickhoff, Kellermann and Schneider9

The mixed effects ANOVA revealed significant group differences across all empathy tasks in several regions, for example bilateral amygdala, left inferior and middle frontal gyrus, middle cingulate cortex, and left temporoparietal junction (online Fig. DS2(a) and Table 3).

TABLE 3 Results from the mixed effects ANOVA with group and task as factors, showing a significant main effect of group (threshold: F = 7.32, P<0.05 cluster level corrected) and a significant group×task interaction (threshold: F = 4.95, P<0.05 cluster level corrected)

MNI coordinates
Contrast X Y Z Cluster size F L/R Region
Group effect −20 −4 −20 26 271 41.93 L Amygdala
24 0 18 1135 33.12 R Amygdala
−52 −56 −20 321 23.63 L Inferior temporal gyrus
20 −94 −2 133 22.06 R Cuneus
38 −62 20 466 21.05 R Middle temporal gyrus
−30 18 38 438 14.83 L Middle frontal gyrus
−26 −90 −14 66 13.91 L Lingual gyrus
−52 32 22 113 13.70 L Inferior frontal gyrus
−16 −56 48 507 11.93 L Precuneus
−42 −66 −10 202 11.69 L Middle occipital gyrus
−46 −62 48 80 9.93 L Temporoparietal junction
4 −24 58 96 9.44 R Middle cingulate cortex
Group × task interaction 48 −64 −10 1721 36.45 R Inferior temporal gyrus
−8 −102 2 1362 25.45 L Cuneus
−44 −76 −4 917 23.22 L Middle occipital gyrus
6 −66 42 488 9.23 R Precuneus
40 −48 52 261 8.73 R Temporoparietal junction
46 26 24 247 8.15 R Inferior frontal gyrus
−48 26 −14 59 6.72 L Inferior frontal gyrus
24 −42 −20 82 7.84 R Cerebellum
62 −28 26 118 6.19 R Supramarginal gyrus

MNI, Montreal Neurological Institute; L, left; R, right.

Moreover, a significant task effect and a significant task×group interaction emerged. Post hoc t-tests revealed several significant findings (online Fig. DS2(b) and Table DS1).

For ER, the CHR group showed stronger activation compared with the CON group in a widespread network, including bilateral amygdala, right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), right middle temporal gyrus (MTG), left parahippocampal gyrus, right middle cingulate gyrus and left thalamus. Comparing the CHR group with the SZP group, stronger recruitment of left amygdala, left thalamus, and inferior frontal gyri bilaterally was apparent in the CHR group. The CON and SZP groups showed no stronger activation than the CHR group.

For EPT, the CHR group showed a stronger neural response in the right IFG, left superior medial frontal gyrus, right middle and left inferior temporal gyrus as well as left parahippocampal gyrus than the CON group. The CHR group also exhibited stronger activation than the SZP group of the amygdala bilaterally, left superior medial frontal gyrus, bilateral parahippocampal gyrus, left putamen, bilateral middle frontal gyrus and right lingual gyrus. Again, the CON and SZP groups demonstrated no stronger activation than the CHR group.

Regarding AR, group comparisons revealed stronger activation of the CHR group than the CON group only in the left MTG, whereas the CON group recruited bilateral superior temporal gyrus and right temporoparietal junction more strongly. In comparison with the SZP group, the CHR group showed stronger neural response of the amygdala bilaterally, right IFG, bilateral superior frontal gyrus and thalamus. Again, the SZP group exhibited no stronger activation than the CHR group.

ROI analysis

The ANOVA demonstrated a significant task effect (F(2,80) = 17.675, P50.001), a significant group effect (F(2,40) = 5.104, P = 0.011), and a significant task×laterality interaction (F(2,80) = 6.304, P = 0.003). Moreover, a trend towards a task×group interaction occurred (F(2,80) = 2.482, P = 0.051), but no significant laterality effect (F(2,40) = 2.367, P = 0.133) and no other interaction reached significance (Ps>0.068). Post hoc analysis of the task effect showed that amygdala activation was stronger during ER compared with both other tasks (Ps<0.001), whereas activation did not differ between EPT and AR (P = 1.000). Regarding the group effect, post hoc tests demonstrated significantly less amygdala activation in the SZP group compared with the CON group (P = 0.024) and the CHR group (P = 0.030), whereas the CHR group did not differ from the CON group (P = 1.000). The significant task×laterality interaction revealed a laterality effect only for AR, where the left amygdala showed a significantly stronger response than the right (P = 0.008). Both other tasks showed no laterality difference (Ps>0.069).

Correlation analyses

Behavioural data

Positive symptoms as assessed via SIPS/SOPS showed a significant correlation with accuracy in EPT (r = −0.704, P= 0.007). No other correlation regarding symptom severity (SIPS/SOPS, PANSS) or depression scores (MADRS) reached significance (Ps>0.197). SOFAS scores correlated with performance in ER (r = 0.793, P = 0.001) and EPT (r = 0.625, P = 0.022), but not with AR (P = 0.234).

Functional data

Correlation analyses between performance accuracy and task-specific amygdala activation failed to show significant associations in any group (Ps>0.184).

Regarding clinical parameters in the CHR group, positive symptoms as well as depression scores correlated significantly with amygdala activation during EPT (SIPS_P: r = 0.580, P = 0.038; MADRS: r = −0.563, P = 0.045). A trend for a similar correlation emerged for depression scores and amygdala activation during AR (ρ = −0.572, P = 0.052), whereas all other associations did not reach significance (Ps>0.062).

Discussion

The aim of the current study was to explore behavioural and neural correlates of the core components of empathy, namely ER, EPT and AR in persons at clinical high risk of psychosis compared with healthy controls and individuals with schizophrenia. To the best of our knowledge, no neuroimaging study has addressed a broader range of emotional competencies in the CHR group.

The CHR group showed similar behavioural performance compared with the CON group, thereby supporting findings on unimpaired ER/differentiation in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis Reference Addington, Piskulic, Perkins, Woods, Liu and Penn19 and extending such evidence to further empathy components. In line with previous work, Reference Seiferth, Pauly, Habel, Kellermann, Shah and Ruhrmann20 the CHR group differed markedly in their neural activation from the CON group. Comparing neural activation of the CHR and SZP groups demonstrated significant differences across all tasks, with the CHR group showing hyperactivation mainly in emotion-related areas. Additionally, significant correlations between performance, neural activation, clinical parameters and social functioning emerged.

Abnormalities in the neural empathy network in the CHR group

Compared with the CON group, neural activation of the CHR group was mainly characterised by hyperactivation of the IFG, the middle cingulate cortex and the parahippocampal gyrus. Interestingly, the MTG showed hyperactivation during all tasks. Elevated MTG activation was recently reported during application of an emotion regulation strategy (distancing) in healthy participants. Reference Koenigsberg, Fan, Ochsner, Liu, Guise and Pizzarello36 Here, the CHR group showed stronger activation of the MTG during all tasks but particularly during AR, the only self-centred task where we asked participants to imagine going through a certain situation and how this would make them feel. The stronger activation of the MTG might indicate that the CHR group was actively using this strategy to prevent them from reacting too emotionally. Since the MTG is only one node in the neural network underlying emotion regulation Reference Koenigsberg, Fan, Ochsner, Liu, Guise and Pizzarello36 and due to multiple functions of each brain region as well as the limited data available in the CHR group, this interpretation needs additional support from the literature. Alternatively, the MTG was proposed to play a major role in mentalising and understanding other people's intentions and emotions. Reference Amodio and Frith37 Stronger activation of the CHR group might then reflect compensatory mechanisms, probably the reason for their unimpaired behavioural performance.

Activation of the IFG was repeatedly observed during various emotional processes including empathy. Reference Derntl, Finkelmeyer, Voss, Eickhoff, Kellermann and Schneider9,Reference Harvey, Zaki, Lee, Ochsner and Green10 In our data, the CHR group demonstrated hyperactivation of this region particularly during ER and EPT compared with the CON group and during ER and AR compared with the SZP group. Seiferth et al Reference Seiferth, Pauly, Habel, Kellermann, Shah and Ruhrmann20 reported stronger activation of the IFG during processing of neutral faces, probably reflecting aberrant attributions of motivational/emotional salience to neutral stimuli, which were also proposed to characterise individuals with schizophrenia. Reference Kapur38 However, direct comparison indicated that, although the SZP group showed a significant reduction in IFG activation across all three tasks, Reference Derntl, Finkelmeyer, Voss, Eickhoff, Kellermann and Schneider9 the CHR group mainly demonstrated hyperactivation of this region. These diverging activation patterns might point to neural changes before illness onset. Given the functionality of sub-regions of the IFG for action observation, imitation, mentalising and emotion processing, Reference Nishitani, Schürmann, Amunts and Hari39 we speculate that the hyperactivation in the CHR group might reflect compensation mechanisms that enabled the CHR group to perform similar to the CON group, whereas the hypoactivation in the SZP group indicates the consequences of illness onset and denotes one important substrate of an impaired capacity to spontaneously simulate another person's subjective world.

Another region that showed elevated activation in the CHR group compared with the CON group as well as the SZP group was the parahippocampal gyrus. Recently, grey matter volume reductions in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis were investigated and persons who later developed a psychotic disorder showed distinct reductions of parahippocampal cortex volume. Reference Mechelli, Riecher-Rössler, Meisenzahl, Tognin, Wood and Borgwardt40 Hence, volume alterations of this region may be crucial to the expression of illness.

Notably, we observed greater activation of the amygdala bilaterally in the CHR group compared with the CON group during ER and compared with the SZP group across all tasks. This exaggerated activation might be due to disturbed frontolimbic connectivity in the CHR group, which was recently shown in children and adolescents with familial risk for psychosis. Reference Diwadkar, Wadehra, Pruitt, Keshavan, Rajan and Zajac-Benitez41 This dysfunctional connectivity could lead to elevated emotional arousal, hypersensitivity for emotional stimuli, particularly facial expressions of emotions, causing heightened negative affect and stress. The assumption of amygdala involvement in the pathophysiology of psychosis stems from studies demonstrating amygdala dysfunction in the SZP group and patients with bipolar disorder with psychotic history Reference Delvecchio, Sugranyes and Frangou42 and findings of elevated amygdala activation in psychosis-prone individuals, Reference Modinos, Pettersson-Yeo, Allen, McGuire, Aleman and Mechelli43 which was also accompanied by less prefrontal-amygdala coupling. Interestingly, in our study positive symptoms were associated with less accuracy and higher amygdala activation during perspective-taking, perhaps also reflecting less prefrontal amygdala coupling during this cognitive empathy task.

Mechanism of empathy abnormalities in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis

There is very limited evidence on neural correlates of emotional abilities in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis. Seiferth et al Reference Seiferth, Pauly, Habel, Kellermann, Shah and Ruhrmann20 investigated ER performance and observed stronger activation in visual areas in participants at clinical high risk of psychosis compared with controls for all stimuli, whereas neutral facial expressions prompted marked hyperactivation in frontolimbic regions. They suggested that this hyperactivation might reflect hypersensitivity to affectively irrelevant stimuli in brain areas relevant for attributing affective salience.

Greater activation in people at clinical high risk of psychosis in regions known to be essential for emotion and sociocognitive processing were also reported in studies addressing theory of mind. Reference Marjoram, Job, Whalley, Gountouna, McIntosh and Simonotto44,Reference Brüne, Ozgürdal, Ansorge, van Reventlow, Peters and Nicolas45 Brüne et al Reference Brüne, Ozgürdal, Ansorge, van Reventlow, Peters and Nicolas45 concluded that their findings indicate that individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis were emotionally more aroused during task performance and may show compensatory hyperactivation, suggesting a ‘graded’ activation pattern, with people at clinical high risk of psychosis showing the highest activation and individuals with schizophrenia the least activation. Similar to our study, none of these three studies reported behavioural impairments in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis.

Taken together, previous studies exploring emotional or social cognitive abilities and their neural underpinnings mostly reported hyperactivation in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis compared with controls and individuals with schizophrenia. The possible mechanism underlying these findings is currently unclear, however, some suggestions have been made: Kapur Reference Kapur38 proposed that the development of psychosis is characterised by a stage of ‘heightened awareness and emotionality’, possibly caused by changes in cerebral dopamine metabolism. Phillips & Seidman Reference Phillips and Seidman46 speculated that an overactive amygdala – as apparent in the present study – might not only lead to stronger arousal but may also signal a threat where it does not exist causing increased negative affect and stress. Frontolimbic connectivity was shown to be disturbed in persons with first-episode and chronic schizophrenia Reference Anticevic, Tang, Cho, Repovs, Cole and Savic47 but also in children and adolescents at familial risk for schizophrenia, Reference Diwadkar, Wadehra, Pruitt, Keshavan, Rajan and Zajac-Benitez41 further supporting the notion that neural abnormalities in emotion processing and emotion regulation might be apparent prior to illness onset and before detectable behavioural deficits arise.

Our finding of hyperactivation in emotion-related brain regions corroborates data from neuroimaging studies in unaffected siblings, i.e. persons genetically at risk for psychosis. Reference Van Buuren, Vink, Rapcencu and Kahn14 However, several other studies in these individuals observed hypoactivation of the neural circuitry of emotion Reference Habel, Klein, Shah, Toni, Zilles and Falkai13 indicating that clinical symptoms, as apparent in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis, lead to partly divergent neural activation patterns and behavioural performance than just the genetic risk.

Limitations

The CHR group was relatively small even for neuroimaging studies and it remained unknown how many persons were about to develop a manifest illness. Thus, we are unable to firmly draw the conclusion that greater activation of frontolimbic regions in the CHR group is in any way linked to a disease process. This aspect can only be addressed in longitudinal studies, testing non-converters and converters prior and after manifestation of psychosis. Moreover, not only empathic but also metacognitive abilities might be of interest as previous studies in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis, first-episode psychosis and chronic schizophrenia indicated developmental changes throughout the course of the disorder, although findings are not always consistent. Reference Barbato, Penn, Perkins, Woods, Liu and Addington48Reference Vohs, Lysaker, Francis, Hamm, Buck and Olesek50 Additionally, besides the one third that may convert to develop psychosis, Addington et al Reference Addington, Cornblatt, Cadenhead, Cannon, McGlashan and Perkins51 pointed out that the other two-thirds will most likely be further characterised by low functional outcome. Hence, they also might benefit from treatment interventions addressing empathic, social cognitive and metacognitive abilities Reference Kurtz and Richardson52,Reference Lysaker and Dimaggio53 and thus better characterisation of their resources and deficits are needed.

Our sample was heterogeneous with respect to gender and medication. Gender differences in empathy were reported previously in healthy individuals. Reference Schulte-Rüther, Markowitsch, Shah, Fink and Piefke54 Thus, future studies should explore whether female and male individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis are also characterised by distinct neural responses. Three individuals in the CHR group were taking antipsychotic medication. Re-running all analyses without these individuals revealed similar results, with the main findings remaining significant. Moreover, in our previous neuroimaging study on empathy in schizophrenia we observed similar results when controlling for medication as covariate, Reference Derntl, Finkelmeyer, Voss, Eickhoff, Kellermann and Schneider9 which was in line with non-significant findings from a meta-analysis. Reference Kohler, Walker, Martin, Healey and Moberg7 Previous neuroimaging studies were very inconsistent in whether to exclude or include medicated participants. As it is unclear how antipsychotic medication actually affects symptomatology, behaviour and neural activation in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis, future research should be dedicated to further investigate this aspect.

In comparison to matched healthy controls and individuals with schizophrenia, individuals clinically at risk for psychosis showed frontotemporolimbic hyperactivation during empathy despite unimpaired behavioural performance. Our results are consistent with findings from previous fMRI studies addressing social cognitive aspects in this group, which also reported neural hyperactivation. Possible mechanisms driving this greater activation besides compensatory overactivation might be hypersensitivity to emotional stimuli, elevated negative affect as well as dysfunctional emotion regulation. Further investigations will have to clarify the role of the described neural alterations for the development and exacerbation of psychotic symptoms. Particularly, specificity and prognostic value of these brain activation differences in psychosisprone patients need to be examined, thereby gaining information on early diagnosis and treatment possibilities.

Funding

This study was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG, IRTG 1328 and PREVENT – Secondary Prevention of Schizophrenia). B.D. and U.H. were further supported by the DFG (Ha3202/7) and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF P23533).

Footnotes

These authors contributed equally to the work.

Declaration of interest

None.

The PDF of this article has been corrected post-publication, in deviation from print and in accordance with a correction published in the June 2016 issue of the BJPsych

References

1 Fett, AK, Viechtbauer, W, Dominguez, MD, Penn, DL, van Os, J, Krabbendam, L. The relationship between neurocognition and social cognition with functional outcomes in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2011; 35: 573–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Sergi, MJ, Rassovsky, Y, Widmark, C, Reist, C, Erhart, S, Braff, DL, et al. Social cognition in schizophrenia: relationships with neurocognition and negative symptoms. Schizophr Res 2007; 90: 316–24.Google Scholar
3 Lysaker, PH, Shea, AM, Buck, KD, Dimaggio, G, Nicolò, G, Procacci, M, et al. Metacognition as a mediator of the effects of impairments in neurocognition on social function in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2010; 122: 405–13.Google Scholar
4 Kohut, H. Introspection, empathy, and psychoanalysis. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 1959; 7: 459–83.Google Scholar
5 Preston, SD, de Waal, FB. Empathy: its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav Brain Sci 2002; 25: 120.Google Scholar
6 Decety, J, Jackson, PL. The functional architecture of human empathy. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev 2004; 3: 71100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Kohler, CG, Walker, JB, Martin, EA, Healey, KM, Moberg, PJ. Facial emotion perception in schizophrenia: a meta-analytic review. Schizophr Bull 2010; 36: 1009–19.Google Scholar
8 Derntl, B, Finkelmeyer, A, Toygar, TK, Hülsmann, A, Schneider, F, Falkenberg, DI, et al. Generalized deficit in all core components of empathy in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2009; 108: 197206.Google Scholar
9 Derntl, B, Finkelmeyer, A, Voss, B, Eickhoff, SB, Kellermann, T, Schneider, F, et al. Neural correlates of the core facets of empathy in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2012; 136: 7081.Google Scholar
10 Harvey, PO, Zaki, J, Lee, J, Ochsner, K, Green, MF. Neural substrates of empathic accuracy in people with schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2013; 39: 617–28.Google Scholar
11 Smith, MJ, Schroeder, MP, Abram, SV, Goldman, MB, Parrish, TB, Wang, X, et al. Alterations in brain activation during cognitive empathy are related to social functioning in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2015; 41: 211–22.Google Scholar
12 Eack, SM, Mermon, DE, Montrose, DM, Miewald, J, Gur, RE, Gur, RC, et al. Social cognition deficits among individuals at familial high risk for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2010; 36: 1081–8.Google Scholar
13 Habel, U, Klein, M, Shah, NJ, Toni, I, Zilles, K, Falkai, P, et al. Genetic load on amygdala hypofunction during sadness in nonaffected brothers of schizophrenia patients. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161: 1806–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Van Buuren, M, Vink, M, Rapcencu, AE, Kahn, RS. Exaggerated brain activation during emotion processing in unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 2011; 70: 81–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15 Rasetti, R, Mattay, VS, Wiedholz, LM, Kolachana, BS, Hariri, AR, Callicott, JH, et al. Evidence that altered amygdala activity in schizophrenia is related to clinical state and not genetic risk. Am J Psychiatry 2009; 166: 216–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Addington, J, Penn, D, Woods, SW, Addington, D, Perkins, DO. Facial affect recognition in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis. Br J Psychiatry 2008; 192: 67–8.Google Scholar
17 Amminger, GP, Schäfer, MR, Papageorgiou, K, Klier, CM, Schlögelhofer, M, Mossaheb, N, et al. Emotion recognition in individuals at clinical high-risk for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2012; 38: 1030–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18 Kohler, CG, Richard, JA, Brensinger, CM, Borgmann-Winter, KE, Conroy, CG, Moberg, PJ, et al. Facial emotion perception differs in young persons at genetic and clinical high-risk for psychosis. Psychiatry Res 2014; 216: 206–12.Google Scholar
19 Addington, J, Piskulic, D, Perkins, D, Woods, SW, Liu, L, Penn, DL. Affect recognition in people at clinical high risk of psychosis. Schizophr Res 2012; 140: 8792.Google Scholar
20 Seiferth, NY, Pauly, K, Habel, U, Kellermann, T, Shah, NJ, Ruhrmann, S, et al. Increased neural response related to neutral faces in individuals at risk for psychosis. Neuroimage 2008; 40: 289–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21 Smith, MJ, Horan, WP, Karpouzian, TM, Abram, SV, Cobia, DJ, Csernansky, JG. Self-reported empathy deficits are uniquely associated with poor functioning in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2012; 137: 196202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22 Cannon, TD. Neurodevelopment and the transition from schizophrenia prodrome to schizophrenia: research imperatives. Biol Psychiatry 2008; 64: 737–8.Google Scholar
23 McGlashan, TH, Miller, TJ, Woods, SW. Pre-onset detection and intervention research in schizophrenia psychoses: current estimates of benefit and risk. Schizophr Bull 2001; 27: 563–70.Google Scholar
24 Kay, SR, Fiszbein, A, Opler, LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 1987; 13: 261–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25 Schultze-Lutter, F, Ruhrmann, S, Hoyer, C, Klosterkötter, J, Leweke, FM. The initial prodrome of schizophrenia: different duration, different underlying deficits? Compr Psychiatry 2007; 48: 479–88.Google Scholar
26 Goldman, HH, Skodol, AE, Lave, TR. Revising Axis V for DSM-IV: A review of measures of social functioning. Am J Psychiatry 1992; 149: 1148–56.Google Scholar
27 Montgomery, SA, Åsberg, M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 1979; 134: 382–9.Google Scholar
28 Wittchen, H-U, Zaudig, M, Fydrich, T. Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-IV. Göttingen Hogrefe, 1997.Google Scholar
29 Paulus, C. Der Saarbrücker Persönlichkeitsfragebogen SPF (IRI) zur Messung von Empathie [German Version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index]. Dr Christoph Paulus, University of Saarbrücken, 2014 (http://bildungswissenschaften.uni-saarland.de/personal/paulus/homepage/empathie.html).Google Scholar
30 Lehrl, S. Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Intelligenztest: MWT-B. Balingen Spitta Verlag, 2005.Google Scholar
31 Reitan, RM. Validity of the Trail Making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept Mot Skills 1958; 8: 271–6.Google Scholar
32 Petermann, F (ed.) WAIS-IV – Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition – deutschsprachige Adaptation. Frankfurt a.M. Pearson, 2012.Google Scholar
33 Gur, RC, Sara, R, Hagendoorn, M, Marom, O, Hughett, P, Macy, L, et al. A method for obtaining 3-dimensional facial expressions and its standardization for use in neurocognitive studies. J Neurosci Methods 2002; 115: 137–43.Google Scholar
34 Cox, RW. AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. Comput Biomed Res 1996; 29: 162–73.Google Scholar
35 Amunts, K, Kedo, O, Kindler, M, Pieperhoff, P, Mohlberg, H, Shah, NJ, et al. Cytoarchitectonic mapping of the human amygdala, hippocampal region and entorhinal cortex: intersubject variability and probability maps. Anat Embryology 2005; 210: 343–52.Google Scholar
36 Koenigsberg, HW, Fan, J, Ochsner, KN, Liu, X, Guise, K, Pizzarello, S, et al. Neural correlates of using distancing to regulate emotional responses to social situations. Neuropsychologia 2010; 48: 1813–22.Google Scholar
37 Amodio, DM, Frith, CD. Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci 2006; 7: 268–77.Google Scholar
38 Kapur, S. Psychosis as a state of aberrant salience: a framework linking biology, phenomenology, and pharmacology in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 1323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39 Nishitani, N, Schürmann, M, Amunts, K, Hari, R. Broca's region: from action to language. Physiology 2005; 20: 60–9.Google Scholar
40 Mechelli, A, Riecher-Rössler, A, Meisenzahl, EM, Tognin, S, Wood, SJ, Borgwardt, SJ, et al. Neuroanatomical abnormalities that predate the onset of psychosis: a multicenter study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2011; 68: 489–95.Google Scholar
41 Diwadkar, VA, Wadehra, S, Pruitt, P, Keshavan, MS, Rajan, U, Zajac-Benitez, C, et al. Disordered corticolimbic interactions during affective processing in children and adolescents at risk for schizophrenia revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging and dynamic causal modeling. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012; 69: 231–42.Google Scholar
42 Delvecchio, G, Sugranyes, G, Frangou, S. Evidence of diagnostic specificity in the neural correlates of facial affect processing in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of functional imaging studies. Psychol Med 2012; 9: 117.Google Scholar
43 Modinos, G, Pettersson-Yeo, W, Allen, P, McGuire, PK, Aleman, A, Mechelli, A. Multivariate pattern classification reveals differential brain activation during emotional processing in individuals with psychosis proneness. Neuroimage 2012; 59: 3033–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44 Marjoram, D, Job, DE, Whalley, HC, Gountouna, V, McIntosh, AM, Simonotto, E, et al. A visual joke fMRI investigation into Theory of Mind and enhanced risk of schizophrenia. Neuroimage 2006; 31: 1850–8.Google Scholar
45 Brüne, M, Ozgürdal, S, Ansorge, N, van Reventlow, HG, Peters, S, Nicolas, V, et al. An fMRI study of theory of mind in at-risk states of psychosis: comparison with manifest schizophrenia and healthy controls. Neuroimage 2011; 55: 329–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46 Phillips, LK, Seidman, LJ. Emotion processing in persons at risk for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2008; 34: 888903.Google Scholar
47 Anticevic, A, Tang, Y, Cho, YT, Repovs, G, Cole, MW, Savic, A, et al. Amygdala connectivity differs among chronic, early course, and individuals at risk for developing schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2014; 40: 1105–16.Google Scholar
48 Barbato, M, Penn, DL, Perkins, DO, Woods, SW, Liu, L, Addington, J. Metacognitive functioning in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis. Behav Cogn Psychother 2014; 42: 526–34.Google Scholar
49 MacBeth, A, Gumley, A, Schwannauer, M, Carcione, A, Fisher, R, McLeod, HJ, et al. Metacognition, symptoms and premorbid functioning in a First Episode Psychosis sample. Compr Psychiatry 2014; 55: 268–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 Vohs, JL, Lysaker, PH, Francis, MM, Hamm, J, Buck, KD, Olesek, K, et al. Metacognition, social cognition, and symptoms in patients with first episode and prolonged psychoses. Schizophr Res 2014; 153: 54–9.Google Scholar
51 Addington, J, Cornblatt, BA, Cadenhead, KS, Cannon, TD, McGlashan, TH, Perkins, DO, et al. At clinical high risk for psychosis: outcome for nonconverters. Am J Psychiatry 2011; 168: 800–5.Google Scholar
52 Kurtz, MM, Richardson, CL. Social cognitive training for schizophrenia: a meta-analytic investigation of controlled research. Schizophr Bull 2012; 38: 1092–104.Google Scholar
53 Lysaker, PH, Dimaggio, G. Metacognitive capacities for reflection in schizophrenia: implications for developing treatments. Schizophr Bull 2014; 40: 487–91.Google Scholar
54 Schulte-Rüther, M, Markowitsch, HJ, Shah, NJ, Fink, GR, Piefke, M. Gender differences in brain networks supporting empathy. Neuroimage 2008; 42: 393403.Google Scholar
Figure 0

TABLE 1 Mean and standard deviation (in parentheses) of sociodemographic and neuropsychological characteristics of participants with clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR), healthy controls (CON), and patients with schizophrenia (SZP)

Figure 1

TABLE 2 Performance accuracy of the empathy tasks (percent correct) and self-reported empathic abilities for each group (means and standard deviations)

Figure 2

TABLE 3 Results from the mixed effects ANOVA with group and task as factors, showing a significant main effect of group (threshold: F = 7.32, P<0.05 cluster level corrected) and a significant group×task interaction (threshold: F = 4.95, P<0.05 cluster level corrected)

Supplementary material: PDF

Derntl et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Derntl et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 5.5 MB
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.