ArticleSchizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
I fear you're getting too close: neural correlates of personal space violation in paranoia.
Article in Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Increased personal space (PS) is a clinically relevant marker for paranoia. Neuroimaging evidence suggested limbic and prefrontal circuit alterations related to threat processing and emotion regulation (i.e., amygdala, fronto-parietal cortex). We hypothesize that patients with paranoia will respond with altered activation in PS-relevant brain areas (i.e., limbic regions, fronto-parietal cortex) toward personal space intrusion. We included 79 participants with various degrees of paranoia severity; 49 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and 30 controls. In this fMRI study, participants passively viewed pictures of facial expressions in approaching, static, or retracting motions. Violation of PS was modelled with the approaching faces condition. We used firstly a cut off to separate patients in high and low paranoia, and secondly the continuous variations of paranoia severity to understand the full picture. While participants were passively watching faces approaching them in contrast to static faces, group comparison revealed that patients with high paranoia showed hypoactivity mainly in the OFC when compared to patients with low paranoia, and hypoactivity in dlPFC and dPCC when compared to controls. Further, paranoia severity was positively associated with activation of the right hippocampus. Altered neural activity in the OFC, dlPFC, and hippocampus may well reflect the neural responses to the paranoid experience of threat and provide evidence for the hypothesized association between limbic dysfunction and paranoid threat. Modelling of paranoia severity captures variance in neural response to approaching threat, which may be previously undetected due to heterogeneity when examined at the group level.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.