Not All Distraction Is Bad: Working Memory Vulnerability to Implicit Socioemotional Distraction Correlates with Negative Symptoms and Functional Impairment in Psychosis
Table 1
Correlations among task variables (percent-correct), symptom severity, and functional outcome ().
Task variables
SANS
SAPS
Role
Social
GAF
Overall task
−.27
−.24
.
.20
.29
Overall 1-syllable
.23
−.17
.
.34
.36
Overall 2-syllable
−.10
−.18
.
.16
.20
Overall 3-syllable
−.28
−.27
.
.14
.28
1-syllable/facial distraction
minus 1-syllable/geometrical distraction
−.11
−.13
.12
.18
.15
2-syllable/facial distraction
minus 2-syllable/geometrical distraction
−.14
−.08
.12
−.08
.21
3-syllable/facial distraction
minus 3-syllable/geometrical distraction
.
.35
−.50*
−.55**
−.53*
3-syllable/happy facial distraction
minus 3-syllable/geometrical distraction
.
.27
−.54*
−.39
−.53*
3-syllable/neutral facial distraction
minus 3-syllable/geometrical distraction
.
.28
−.50*
−.61**
−.46*
3-syllable/sad facial distraction
minus 3-syllable/geometrical distraction
.
.40
−.30
−.45*
−.42
SANS: scale for the assessment of negative symptoms; SAPS: scale for the assessment of positive symptoms; role: global functioning: role; social: global functioning: social; GAF: global assessment of functioning. ; .
