An interventional study of Social Judgment Paradigm in Schizotypy, sponsored by Central Connecticut State University. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 35 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-21.
Sponsored by Central Connecticut State University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Basic science
This study will examine how young adults with different levels of schizotypal traits process social acceptance and rejection. Participants between 18 and 35 years old will complete a single laboratory session that includes questionnaires and electroencephalography (EEG), a noninvasive method that measures electrical brain activity through sensors placed on the scalp. During EEG recording, participants will complete a computer-based Social Judgment Paradigm (SJP) in which they form expectations about whether another person will like or dislike them and then receive experimentally controlled acceptance or rejection feedback. The study will examine how brain responses differ when social feedback is expected versus unexpected and whether these responses vary with schizotypal traits. The goal is to better understand the brain mechanisms involved in evaluating social feedback. This study does not provide treatment and does not test a drug or medical device.
Schizotypal traits occur along a continuum in the general population and are associated with differences in social functioning and social information processing. This study will investigate neural responses to social feedback in young adults across the schizotypy spectrum using electroencephalography (EEG).
Participants between 18 and 35 years old will complete a single experimental session. During EEG recording, they will perform a Social Judgment Paradigm (SJP) in which they first form an expectation about whether another person will respond positively or negatively toward them and subsequently receive acceptance or rejection feedback. This produces four within-participant feedback conditions: expected acceptance, expected rejection, unexpected acceptance, and unexpected rejection.
The study will examine brain activity associated with evaluating social feedback, including frontal-midline (FM) theta activity and event-related potentials (ERPs). The primary analyses will test whether neural responses to acceptance and rejection, particularly when feedback violates expectations, vary as a function of continuous schizotypal traits. Participants will also complete self-report measures assessing schizotypal traits, social functioning, and related psychological characteristics.
The study is designed to clarify neural mechanisms involved in social feedback evaluation and to determine how individual differences in schizotypal traits are associated with these processes.
236 studies on the registry are indexed under Social Isolation; 61 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 100 is above the median of 80 across 198 interventional studies indexed under Social Isolation.
Browse Social Isolation studies →This is the only study on the registry with Central Connecticut State University as lead sponsor.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Participants complete a single-session Social Judgment Paradigm during EEG recording. All participants experience four within-subject experimental conditions defined by feedback expectancy (expected versus unexpected) and feedback valence (acceptance versus rejection): expected acceptance, expected rejection, unexpected acceptance, and unexpected rejection. The order of feedback trials is randomized within the task.
Behavioral: Social Judgment Paradigm
A computerized Social Judgment Paradigm in which participants receive experimentally controlled social feedback (acceptance/rejection) from purported peers or evaluators while continuous EEG is recorded to assess oscillatory activity and event-related potentials associated with social feedback processing. Feedback valence and expectancy are manipulated at the trial level, with trial order randomized within the task.
Also known as: SJP
Frontal Midline Theta Power (4-7 Hz)
Mean frontal-midline theta-band power (4-7 Hz) derived from EEG data time-locked to feedback onset during the Social Judgment Paradigm, quantified during the prespecified 200-600 ms post-feedback window at frontocentral electrodes. Theta power will be measured directly across the four feedback conditions defined by expectancy (expected/unexpected) and feedback valence (acceptance/rejection).
Time frame: Day 1
Feedback-Related Negativity (FRN) Amplitude
Mean event-related potential (ERP) amplitude within the 250-350 ms time window following feedback onset during the Social Judgment Paradigm, quantified at frontocentral electrodes. FRN amplitude will be measured directly across the four feedback conditions defined by expectancy and feedback valence.
Time frame: Day 1
Late Positive Potential (LPP) Amplitude
Mean event-related potential (ERP) amplitude within the 350-600 ms time window following feedback onset during the Social Judgment Paradigm, quantified at midline electrodes. LPP amplitude will be measured directly across the four feedback conditions defined by expectancy and feedback valence.
Time frame: Day 1
Behavioral Expectancy Responses
Participant predictions of social acceptance or rejection during each trial of the Social Judgment Paradigm, including expectancy response and reaction time.
Time frame: Day 1
Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ) Total Score
The Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ) is a 74-item self-report measure assessing schizotypal personality traits across cognitive-perceptual, interpersonal, and disorganized dimensions. Items are answered in a yes/no format and scored dichotomously. Item scores are summed to produce a total score ranging from 0 to 74. Higher scores indicate greater levels of schizotypal personality traits.
Time frame: Day 1
Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale (MSS) Scores
The Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale (MSS) is a 77-item self-report measure assessing positive, negative, and disorganized dimensions of schizotypy. Items are answered using a true/false response format. The Positive Schizotypy subscale contains 26 items and ranges from 0 to 26; the Negative Schizotypy subscale contains 26 items and ranges from 0 to 26; and the Disorganized Schizotypy subscale contains 25 items and ranges from 0 to 25. Higher scores on each subscale indicate greater levels of the corresponding dimension of schizotypy.
Time frame: Day 1
Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-Revised (BFNES-R) Total Score
The Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-Revised (BFNES-R) is a 12-item self-report measure assessing fear of negative evaluation by others. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all characteristic of me) to 4 (extremely characteristic of me). Item ratings are summed to produce a total score ranging from 0 to 48. Higher scores indicate greater fear of negative evaluation and greater concern about others' social evaluation.
Time frame: Day 1
Perceived Stress Reactivity Scale (PSRS) Total Score
The Perceived Stress Reactivity Scale (PSRS) is a 23-item self-report measure assessing an individual's typical response intensity to potentially stressful situations in everyday life. The scale includes five domains: prolonged reactivity, reactivity to failure, reactivity to social conflict, reactivity to work overload, and reactivity to social evaluation. Items are scored from 0 to 2, with negatively keyed items reverse-scored, and summed to produce a total score ranging from 0 to 46. Higher scores indicate greater perceived stress reactivity
Time frame: Day 1
Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ) Total Score
The Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ) is an 8-item self-report measure assessing perceived social functioning across domains including work and home activities, finances, close relationships, family relationships, social isolation, sexual functioning, and leisure activities. Each item is scored from 0 to 3, and item scores are summed to produce a total score ranging from 0 to 24. Higher scores indicate poorer social functioning.
Time frame: Day 1
Plan to share: Yes — De-identified individual participant data will be shared through the NIMH Data Archive (NDA). Shared data will include demographic, behavioral, clinical/phenotypic, and questionnaire data; expectancy ratings and trial-level responses from the Social Judgment Paradigm; raw 64-channel EEG data; and processed EEG derivatives underlying project findings, including ERP and time-frequency measures. Direct identifiers will not be shared.
Time frame: Data underlying peer-reviewed publications will be shared by the time of publication. Other study data, including unpublished data, will be shared no later than the end of the period of performance, including any no-cost extensions.
Access criteria: Individual participant data will be available through the NIMH Data Archive (NDA) in accordance with NDA data access policies and procedures. Access to participant-level data will be governed by NDA requirements designed to protect participants' privacy, rights, and confidentiality. Direct identifiers will not be shared.
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Sep 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.