Book contents
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Advance Praise for Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- General Introduction
- Part I Neuroscience, Mechanisms, and RDoC
- Section 1
- Section 2
- 4 Introduction
- 5 Wrangling the Matrix: Lessons from the RDoC Working Memory Domain
- 6 Brain and Mind in Psychiatry? Presuppositions of Cognitive Ontology
- Section 3
- Part II Phenomenology, Biological Psychology, and the Mind–Body Problem
- Part III Taxonomy, Integration, and Multiple Levels of Explanation
- Index
- References
5 - Wrangling the Matrix: Lessons from the RDoC Working Memory Domain
from Section 2
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2020
Book contents
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Advance Praise for Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- General Introduction
- Part I Neuroscience, Mechanisms, and RDoC
- Section 1
- Section 2
- 4 Introduction
- 5 Wrangling the Matrix: Lessons from the RDoC Working Memory Domain
- 6 Brain and Mind in Psychiatry? Presuppositions of Cognitive Ontology
- Section 3
- Part II Phenomenology, Biological Psychology, and the Mind–Body Problem
- Part III Taxonomy, Integration, and Multiple Levels of Explanation
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter describes the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative, illustrating how elements from different “levels” or “units” of analysis are represented as domains, constructs, and subconstructs to form the RDoC “matrix.” The example of “working memory” is used to show that the matrix possesses conceptual elements drawn from diverse theories and experiments about working memory, but lacks a controlled vocabulary and specification of putative relations among the elements, that would serve as an organizing framework. An ontology (in the informatics sense) can be developed using existing tools to represent and analyze relations between most adjacent levels, with a notable exception: the link between cellular/network systems and observable behavior, which directly confronts the mind-body problem. Finally, the chapter considers how the field may best wrangle with the RDoC matrix using bottom-up and top-down strategies, while leveraging advantages and avoiding pitfalls of computational models and artificial intelligence.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Levels of Analysis in PsychopathologyCross-Disciplinary Perspectives, pp. 59 - 77Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Bilder, R. M., Howe, A. G., & Sabb, F. W. (2013) ‘Multilevel models from biology to psychology: Mission impossible?’ Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(3), 917–927.Google Scholar
Bilder, R. M., Lenartowicz, A., Rissman, J., Loo, S., Pochon, J. B., Truong, H., … Sugar, C. (2018) RDoC working memory constructs spanning levels from disability to structural MRI. Paper presented at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, Hollywood, FL.Google Scholar
Bilder, R. M., & Reise, S. P. (2019) ‘Neuropsychological tests of the future: How do we get there from here?’ The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 33(2), 220–245.Google Scholar
Bilder, R. M., Volavka, J., Lachman, H., & Grace, A. (2004) ‘The catechol-O-methyltransferase polymorphism: Relations to the tonic-phasic dopamine hypothesis and neuropsychiatric phenotypes.’ Neuropsychopharmacology, 29(11), 1943–1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsboom, D. (2006) ‘The attack of the psychometricians.’ Psychometrika, 71(3), 425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borsboom, D., & Cramer, A. O. (2013) ‘Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology.’ Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A. G., & Frank, M. J. (2018) ‘Within-and across-trial dynamics of human EEG reveal cooperative interplay between reinforcement learning and working memory.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(10), 2502–2507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) ‘Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.’ Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) ‘Construct validity in psychological tests.’ Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.Google Scholar
Decker, H. S. (2007) ‘How Kraepelinian was Kraepelin? How Kraepelinian are the neo-Kraepelinians? – From Emil Kraepelin to DSM-III.’ History of Psychiatry, 18(71 Pt 3), 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durstewitz, D., Seamans, J. K., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000a) ‘Dopamine-mediated stabilization of delay-period activity in a network model of prefrontal cortex.’ Journal of Neurophysiology, 83(3), 1733–1750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durstewitz, D., Seamans, J. K., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000b) ‘Neurocomputational models of working memory.’ Nature Neuroscience, 3(Suppl.), 1184–1191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2002) Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Flint, J., & Munafo, M. R. (2007) ‘The endophenotype concept in psychiatric genetics.’ Psychological Medicine, 37(2), 163–180.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1966) Project for a scientific psychology (1950 [1895]). London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Friston, K. J., Li, B., Daunizeau, J., & Stephan, K. E. (2011) ‘Network discovery with DCM.’ NeuroImage, 56(3), 1202–1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1985a) ‘Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology: II. A hypothesis and a program for research.’ Archives of Neurology, 42, 521–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1985b) ‘Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology: III. A hypothesis and program for research.’ Archives of Neurology, 42, 634–654.Google Scholar
Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1985c) ‘Cerebral lateralization. Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology: I. A hypothesis and a program for research.’ Archives of Neurology, 42, 428–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1987) Cerebral lateralization. Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McManus, I. C., & Bryden, M. P. (1992) ‘Geschwind’s theory of cerebral laterization: Developing a formal causal model.’ Psychological Bulletin, 110, 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994) Psychometric theory (McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology) (Vol. 3). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, R. C., Wyatte, D. R., & Rohrlich, J. J. (2017) Deep Predictive Learning: A Comprehensive Model of Three Visual Streams. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.04654.Google Scholar
Olesen, P. J., Macoveanu, J., Tegnér, J., & Klingberg, T. (2006) ‘Brain activity related to working memory and distraction in children and adults.’ Cerebral Cortex, 17(5), 1047–1054.Google Scholar
Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018) The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by