2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2016.08.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Subjective versus objective cognition: Evidence for poor metacognitive monitoring in schizophrenia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
1
16
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Even though this scientifically relevant starting point, multidisciplinary exchange during its origin, and case studies are encouraging (Lysaker et al, 2018b(Lysaker et al, , 2019b(Lysaker et al, , 2020, randomized-controlled pilot-studies could, until now, not verify the assumed predictive effects on functioning and work readiness as secondary outcomes (de Jong et al, 2019). More discrete metacognitive interventions (Moritz et al, 2014(Moritz et al, , 2016 as well as cognitive behavioral approaches to non-affective psychosis (Jauhar et al, 2014) primarily define their strength in modulating cognitive biases, thus focus on an improvement of metacognitive monitoring and a decrease of positive symptoms, whereas beneficial effects on social functioning are still debated (Laws et al, 2018). Unfortunately, there is a blatant lack of empirical evidence according to current scientific standards regarding the treatment effects of modern psychodynamic approaches to psychosis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even though this scientifically relevant starting point, multidisciplinary exchange during its origin, and case studies are encouraging (Lysaker et al, 2018b(Lysaker et al, , 2019b(Lysaker et al, , 2020, randomized-controlled pilot-studies could, until now, not verify the assumed predictive effects on functioning and work readiness as secondary outcomes (de Jong et al, 2019). More discrete metacognitive interventions (Moritz et al, 2014(Moritz et al, , 2016 as well as cognitive behavioral approaches to non-affective psychosis (Jauhar et al, 2014) primarily define their strength in modulating cognitive biases, thus focus on an improvement of metacognitive monitoring and a decrease of positive symptoms, whereas beneficial effects on social functioning are still debated (Laws et al, 2018). Unfortunately, there is a blatant lack of empirical evidence according to current scientific standards regarding the treatment effects of modern psychodynamic approaches to psychosis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the correlation between neurocognition and IA has been shown to be small and evidence suggests mean scores on performance-based neurocognitive tests do not differ across levels of IA (Nair et al, 2013). Patients’ self-reported cognitive skills consistently do not correlate with their performance on cognitive tasks or with clinician reports of their cognitive capacity (Duran et al, 2015; Moritz et al, 2016). Between 28% and 52% of individuals with schizophrenia who show cognitive deficits fail to indicate that they have any problems (Medalia & Lim, 2004; Medalia & Thysen, 2008; Medalia, Thysen, & Freilich, 2008), and our own work has demonstrated that 25–50% of patients’ overestimate their abilities when compared to both clinician ratings and performance on neurocognitive tests (Bowie et al, 2007; Sabbag et al, 2011; Sabbag et al, 2012).…”
Section: Neurocognitive Iamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 Importantly, awareness of these biases is often poor in patients. 43 , 44 The metacognitive aspect that sets apart metacognitive training from the other approaches described in this review is the attenuation of overconfidence (ie, “sowing the seeds of doubt”) which according to the metacognitive model of Koriat 9 and others represents a central element of metacognition (see also ref 45).…”
Section: Metacognitive Training For Psychosismentioning
confidence: 99%