Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Patterns of Pragmatic Verbal Abilities in Subjects with First Episode Psychosis and Matched Healthy Controls

  • C. Perlini (a1), A. Tavano (a2), V. Marinelli (a3), O. Danzi (a3), M. Bellani (a3), G. Rambaldelli (a3), N. Dusi (a3), A. Lasalvia (a4), G. De Girolamo (a5), A. Fioritti (a6), P. Santonastaso (a7), G. Neri (a8), D. Ghigi (a9), M. Miceli (a10), S. Scarone (a11), A. Cocchi (a12), S. Torresani (a13), M. Ruggeri (a14), P. Brambilla (a15) and GET UP GROUP (a16)...

Abstract

Introduction

Pragmatic abilities play a crucial role in daily functioning and have been suggested to be impaired in schizophrenia. Nevertheless, patterns of such deficits at the onset of the illness still needs to be elucidated.

Objectives

To outline pragmatic abilities in the first episode of psychosis (FEP).

Aims

To evaluate pragmatic verbal performance and its relationship with pre-frontal abilities in FEP subjects recruited in a large randomized multi-center controlled study (GET UP).

Methods

58 FEP (mean age±SD:34±9 years; 46% males) and 58 1:1 matched healthy controls (HC) were assessed on the metaphor and idiom comprehension subtask of the MEC Protocol and with WCST. A PAF Analysis with Promax rotation of open (=spontaneous explanations) and closed (=multiple choice) metaphors/idioms and WCST variables was conducted.

Results

A 3-factor latent structure emerged in both groups but partially different patterns emerged. As for FEP, open metaphor/idiom explanations loaded into Factor 1 (Self-generated inferences); Factor 2 (Feedback-generated inferences) was loaded by WCST perseverative errors and by closed metaphor explanations. Finally, closed metaphors/idioms loaded into Factor 3 (Inhibition). As for HC, Factor 1 was similarly loaded but explained less variance; Factor 2 was qualitatively different (Reasoning, self+feedback-generated inferences), being loaded by the WCST number of categories and by open metaphors/idioms. Factor 3 was loaded by closed metaphors.

Conclusions

Findings suggest a shared underlying cognitive construct in self-generating perceptual inferences both for verbal pragmatics and pre-frontal skills in HC and patients, while a failure to integrate different sources of perceptual evidence is found only in FEP.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Patterns of Pragmatic Verbal Abilities in Subjects with First Episode Psychosis and Matched Healthy Controls
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Patterns of Pragmatic Verbal Abilities in Subjects with First Episode Psychosis and Matched Healthy Controls
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Patterns of Pragmatic Verbal Abilities in Subjects with First Episode Psychosis and Matched Healthy Controls
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Patterns of Pragmatic Verbal Abilities in Subjects with First Episode Psychosis and Matched Healthy Controls

  • C. Perlini (a1), A. Tavano (a2), V. Marinelli (a3), O. Danzi (a3), M. Bellani (a3), G. Rambaldelli (a3), N. Dusi (a3), A. Lasalvia (a4), G. De Girolamo (a5), A. Fioritti (a6), P. Santonastaso (a7), G. Neri (a8), D. Ghigi (a9), M. Miceli (a10), S. Scarone (a11), A. Cocchi (a12), S. Torresani (a13), M. Ruggeri (a14), P. Brambilla (a15) and GET UP GROUP (a16)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

Patterns of Pragmatic Verbal Abilities in Subjects with First Episode Psychosis and Matched Healthy Controls

  • C. Perlini (a1), A. Tavano (a2), V. Marinelli (a3), O. Danzi (a3), M. Bellani (a3), G. Rambaldelli (a3), N. Dusi (a3), A. Lasalvia (a4), G. De Girolamo (a5), A. Fioritti (a6), P. Santonastaso (a7), G. Neri (a8), D. Ghigi (a9), M. Miceli (a10), S. Scarone (a11), A. Cocchi (a12), S. Torresani (a13), M. Ruggeri (a14), P. Brambilla (a15) and GET UP GROUP (a16)...
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *