Investigates neural markers of fast-response inhibition in schizophrenia, suggesting tools for early detection.
Background: Inhibitory control deficits are a core feature of schizophrenia, yet their spectral and temporal characteristics remain poorly defined. This study investigates fast-response inhibition in first-episode schizophrenia (FES) by focusing on low gamma-band (30–50 Hz) oscillations within the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG)–pre-supplementary motor area (preSMA) circuit. Methods: We conducted a magnetoencephalography (MEG) study involving FES, their first-degree relatives (FDR), and healthy controls (HCs), examining post-stimulus low gamma (30–50 Hz) and beta-band activity across rIFG–preSMA and preSMA–lM1 circuits. Power spectral density (PSD) and functional connectivity (FC) were segmented into middle (150–250 ms) and later (250–400 ms) stages. Behavioral data (BIS-11, DSST) were integrated with MEG features in two canonical discriminant models (Model 1: multimodal; Model 2: behavior-only), with independent temporal validation. Results: FES patients showed early low gamma power reductions in rIFG and preSMA, followed by increased rIFG–preSMA connectivity during later stages—suggesting phase-specific disruption and compensatory adaptation. Model 1 achieved 95.2% classification accuracy (80.6% cross-validated), identifying rIFG–preSMA low gamma connectivity as the strongest neural discriminator. Model 2 retained 88.5% accuracy on temporally independent samples using only BIS and DSST measures. FDR occupied an intermediate position in both models, supporting a dimensional liability continuum. Limitations: The modest sample size, especially for the MEG recordings, may limit generalizability. Medication effects in the FES group and the cross-sectional design may also confound causal interpretation. Conclusion: This study delineates a frequency- and phase-specific disruption in fast-response inhibition in schizophrenia, centered on rIFG–preSMA low gamma desynchronization. The identified neural and behavioral signatures support a dimensional risk framework and may inform early detection strategies in clinical and familial populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: