Action‐Monitoring Alterations as Indicators of Predictive Deficits in Schizophrenia

Abstract

A flexible and dynamically adjustable behavior is crucial to adapt to a continuously changing environment. In order to optimally adapt, we need to learn from the consequences of our behavior. We usually learn through different kinds of prediction errors, which occur when we experience unexpected situations due to false predictions. With this literature review, we intended to contribute to current etiological models that ascribe various positive symptoms (particularly delusions and hallucinations) in patients with schizophrenia to false prediction errors and deficient predictive learning. We discuss alterations in the electrophysiological measure of the error‐related negativity/error negativity (ERN/Ne) as a global deficit and a trait in schizophrenia, as they have been observed in different samples of patients with schizophrenia, in individuals at high‐risk and individuals with subclinical schizotypal traits. As the ERN/Ne can itself be considered the result of predictive processes (evaluation of current action outcomes as worse than expected), we propose that the reported alterations indicate that patients suffering from schizophrenic illnesses fail to adequately classify the outcomes of their actions as better or worse than expected due to a deficit in self‐monitoring. Furthermore, we discuss results in further action‐monitoring components, such as the correct response negativity (CRN)—a smaller negativity elicited by correct responses; and error positivity (Pe)—a later positivity assumed to reflect conscious error processing. The reported results show normal Pe amplitudes and normal post‐error adjustments (adaptations after committed error to improve performance), indicating an intact later and conscious processing. From the results of diminished differences between ERN/Ne and CRN amplitudes, we conclude a general predictive deficit in early aspects of self‐monitoring associated with positive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

Event‐Predictive Cognition: A Root for Conceptual Human Thought

“…First, the dedicated processing of surprising sensorimotor information, that is, unexpectedly large errors between the predicted event dynamics and actual perceptions (Baldwin & Kosie, 2021; Cooper, 2021; Stawarczyk, Bezdek, & Zacks, 2021; Ünal, Ji, & Papafragou, 2021) can serve as event boundary indicators. This initially exogenous surprise signal, once integrated into event and event‐boundary predictive encodings, becomes endogenously predicted, thus suppressing (the then predictable) surprise after learning (Baldwin & Kosie, 2021; Stawarczyk et al, 2021; Storchak et al, 2021). Second, the fact that event processing involves the inference of latent variables can be used in service of event boundary detection.…”

“…Elsner and Adam (2021) and Cooper (2021) essentially agree that action goals, decision‐making, action production and control, as well as action monitoring are closely linked, and may be subsumed by the notion of event‐predictive processing. Interestingly, action monitoring by event‐predictive activities directly enables the distinction between self‐agency and the agency of others (Elsner & Adam, 2021), potentially causing problems when the event‐predictive activities are erroneous (Storchak, Ehlis, & Fallgatter, 2021).…”

“…The inference of the latent causes, which characterize an event, is typically non‐trivial (Shin & DuBrow, 2021). Accordingly, Storchak et al (2021) point out that incorrectly processed error signals may lead to the false integration or non‐integration of event signals, potentially leading to inappropriate stimulus interpretations—essentially generating exogenous surprise signals when they should have been predicted endogenously. A related challenge lies in determining whether a currently perceived event is novel, or should be integrated into available event‐predictive encodings (Baldwin & Kosie, 2021; Stawarczyk et al, 2021).…”

“…The generation of meaningful imaginations relies on the proper re‐combination of events and event successions, where “properness” may be measured by the mutual prediction error in event‐predictive attractors. Such imaginations essentially enable compositional, and even counterfactual, reasoning, planning, and reflection processes (Bilkey & Jensen, 2021; McRae et al, 2021; Storchak et al, 2021; Ünal et al, 2021). While being in tune with the world, however, event‐predictive processes will continuously work on optimally integrating sensorimotor information, adapting event‐predictive encoding activities, and thus parsing, perceiving, and generating events, including action events (Cooper, 2021; Stawarczyk et al, 2021).…”

Events, Event Prediction, and Predictive Processing

“…For example, the event of Tim's feeling happy is causing him to say he is happy explains away the sensory input of Tim's facial expression, mouth movement and emitted sounds, and integrates the observations in one simple model, with the common cause of the three observations being Tim's mood taking on the value “happy”; this inference will be further facilitated in the expected context for this event type, for example Tim seeing his newborn child (and if Tim is a ventriloquist's doll, then that event may be falsely inferred, cf. events in mental illness, see Storchak et al, 2021). In this setting, inference of models or policies is critically related to their precisions , or the fidelity or ambiguity of the mapping from actions to outcomes.…”