Why the study?
Understanding the neurophysiological mechanisms of clinical high risk for schizophrenia is an important goal to identify potential predisposition to future schizophrenia manifestation.
Do saccade characteristics and slow negative potentials differ between patients at clinical high risk for schizophrenia and healthy individuals?
Do saccade characteristics and slow negative potentials differ between patients at clinical high risk for schizophrenia and healthy individuals?
Patients at clinical high risk for schizophrenia show impaired saccade performance, suggesting potential deficits in executive control and interhemispheric asymmetry, despite no observed differences in slow negative potentials or MRI parameters.
Saccade and slow potential differences in small CHR cohort are hypothesis-generating; leaves open biomarker utility pending larger studies.
The concept of clinical high risk (CHR) for schizophrenia implies the possibility of identifying a potential predisposition to future schizophrenia manifestation. An important goal of biological psychiatry is conducting research aimed at understanding the neurophysiological mechanisms of this condition. In this study, saccade characteristics of patients at CHR for schizophrenia (n = 15) and healthy participants (n = 15), as well as parameters of their slow negative potentials in the one-second interval preceding the signal to perform a saccade in a “memory-guided saccades/antisaccades” paradigm were analyzed. 12 participants from the CHR group also underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for subsequent comparison with the control group selected from the laboratory database. Saccade latencies and error rates were higher in the CHR group. There were also found lateral differences in CHR, but not in the control group. However, no between-group differences were observed in studied electrophysiological and MRI parameters. The obtained results may be interpreted as indirect signs of impairments in executive control, interhemispheric asymmetry and connectivity in the CHR group, although further studies are required to determine the possibility of using slow negative potentials parameters as clinical markers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dzhem et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: