Laboratory experiment reveals reduced reward sensitivity from apathy and attentional lapses in college-aged individuals, highlighting task disengagement mechanisms.
Objective The current study examined the associations of apathy with attentional processes, indicated by ex-Gaussian (Ex-G) parameters of sensorimotor response speed and reward learning. Methods One hundred college-aged participants (M age = 20.32; SD = 3.69; 69 female) completed self-report measures of depression, apathy, and attentional control. Laboratory tasks included a choice reaction time (RT) task and a modified probabilistic learning task to assess sensorimotor processing and reward sensitivity. In the probabilistic learning task, participants selected the symbol associated with a high probability of gaining a monetary reward. Choice RT data were fit with Ex-G models, from which the parameter τ (bootstrapped sampling, 1000 iterations) was derived and used as the index of attentional lapses. Results A non-linear relationship was found between apathy and reward learning. Hierarchical regression was used to examine linear and higher-order relationships between apathy and behavioral indices (Ex-G τ and reward sensitivity). Results show that apathy explained none of the variance in reward learning (β = −0.005, p = 0.792, [bootstrapCI = −0.037, 0.026]). Incorporating apathy2 into the model led to significant R2 change (0.086), F(2, 89) = 0.4.142, p = 0.019, suggesting that as apathy increases, reward learning increases (β =0.006, p = 0.002, bootstrapCI = 0.002, 0.010]). Moreover, when controlling for depression, τ significantly contributes to the model, F(3, 89) = 4.142, p = 0.019, R2 = 0.17. Interactive effects revealed that at higher levels of apathy, higher Ex-G τ significantly decreases reward sensitivity (β = −0.003, p = 0.037, 95% bootstrapCI = [−0.006, −002]). Conclusions Higher levels of apathy and attentional lapses jointly reduced reward sensitivity, highlighting the role of task disengagement in apathy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nabulsi et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: