Conditioned Blocking: Schizophrenia
379
Table 2.
Selected Personality Ratings for Psychotic (SCH), Obsessive-compulsive (OCD) and Healthy Subjects (CON)
(MEAN+SEM)
|
HANES scales |
MMPI scales < |
PA |
PT |
SC |
MA | |||||
|
Nl |
El |
E2 |
SI |
D |
PD | |||||
|
* |
# |
# |
it |
# |
# | |||||
|
SCH |
6.4 |
6.4 |
4.7 |
61.8 |
63.5 |
63.5 |
66.5 |
66.3 |
69.6 |
58.7 |
|
n = 25 |
-5 |
— 4 |
2.3 |
2.8 |
2.3 |
3.8 |
2.9 |
3.7 |
2.6 | |
|
— PH |
7.1 n=13 |
4.9 |
4.5 |
63.2 « = 9 |
64.2 |
63.3 |
69.4 |
68.0 |
73.3 |
60.4 |
|
- NP |
5.7 «=12 |
8.0 |
4.8 |
57.7 |
61.3 |
64.0 |
57.7 |
61.3 |
58.3 |
53.3 |
|
OCD |
5.5 |
6.1 |
3.3 |
55.6 |
56.0 |
56.8 |
53.0 |
61.4 |
56.6 |
50.0 |
|
-4 «= 13 |
-8 |
-5 |
4.7 |
5.0 |
4.2 |
4.6 |
2.6 |
1.9 |
2.6 | |
|
CON |
5.0 |
1 f∖ |
5.2 |
49.0 |
47.9 |
48.6 |
46.5 |
48.9 |
50.5 |
51.8 |
|
— 4 « = 29 |
—2 |
—4 |
2.4 |
2.0 |
1.5 |
1.7 |
2.5 |
1.4 |
2.4 | |
Scores significantly deviant from controls are in bold. HANES (three group analysis: SCH, OCD, CON)
F(6,124)≡2.9, p=.012; Newman-Keuls1 .01<p<.04; (N1, SCH>CON and El, SCH<CON, and E2,
OCD<SCH and CON); (four group analysis: PH, NP, OCD, CON) F(9,148)=4.17,p<.000l; Newman-Keuls,
.05<∕><.001 (N1. PH>CON; El, PHcNP & CON; El &E2, OCDeCON). MMPI (three group analysis: SCH1
OCD, CON) F(14146) = 2.62, ∕> = .007; Newman-Keuls, 'p< .02 SCH vs CON, "vs OCD; ,p< .002, SCH vs CON.
For abbreviations see Methods section.
scores (e.g. onfirst trial-pair, r= + .81,/7 = .002. uncorrected). However, NP and PHpatients
showed contrasting associations. Increased lability (Nl) correlated with CB in the NP
group (three CB measures, r= + .59-66,p=.04-.02), but on the only measure where PH
had attenuated CB (first trial-pair), CB related to decreased lability (r = — .60. p =.03) with
a similar modest relationship to psychasthenia (r= -.6,/7 = .07 uncorrected).
A linear regression with all HANES features confirmed that CB related to decreased
neurotic lability in the PH and to an increase in the NP group on the initial trial-pair measure
(when both showed reduced CB; Figure 5). On the three-trial measure and unblocking where
only NP patients showed attenuated CB, their relationship with lability was maintained
( + .72 and +.8, .002<p<.02) and that for PH patients was lost ( —.34,p=.31).
MMPI data were too sparse for analysis in NP or OCD groups, but in the PH group
they help to explain the development of CB absent in the NP group (Table 2). For the main
CB measures negative partial correlations for the “3 Ns“ (neuroticism; — .79, p = .02) and
schizophrenic features (SC, — .94) tend to be opposed by manic features (MA, + .95, p <. 1).
Thus, while neurotic and psychotic features, more evident in PH patients, may interfere
with normal CB at first, their influence may be overcome by manic tendencies (less evident
in NP patients, Table 2). There were no clear MMPI relationships with CB performance in
the controls.
The Status of Monoamine Activity
One interpretation of these data is that the PH and NP groups differ according to another
feature that is associated with the positive-negative symptom distinction in general but is