Current Projects
People with schizophrenia often struggle with a disturbed sense of self, particularly a disrupted "sense of agency"; the feeling that they are in control of their own actions and their outcomes. This can lead to symptoms like feeling controlled by outside forces, hearing voices, or believing others can hear their thoughts.
This sense of agency relies on both automatic brain processes ("bottom-up") and conscious judgments ("top-down"). In schizophrenia, both types are altered, meaning people may misjudge when they cause something to happen, feel less of a sensory response to their own actions, or wrongly believe they caused something they didn’t.
Recent brain research shows that certain signals sent within the brain, called corollary discharge, help predict and interpret our actions. These signals appear to be disrupted in schizophrenia, particularly in the circuits connecting deep brain areas and the cortex.
However, current lab tools to study these brain processes are slow, expensive, and not suited for large or diverse groups. New online tasks that test sense of agency could make it easier to study these issues in more people.
Additionally, lab tests don’t always reflect real life. People with schizophrenia often feel they lack agency in their everyday lives, even when some brain measures suggest otherwise. This deeper issue, called narrative agency, refers to how people understand their actions and their life stories. Research shows this is consistently impaired in schizophrenia and may even appear before full illness develops.
This study uses multiple tools including, online tasks, eye movement tests, and life story interviews, to better understand how these different levels of agency are connected. The goal is to improve how we assess and eventually treat self-related symptoms in schizophrenia.
NARSAD SOA Study
Stakeholder Engagement Systematic Review
Systematic reviews synthesize all available research on a question to guide science, clinical decisions, and policy. They are especially powerful when they involve stakeholders with lived experience, who bring critical insights, increase credibility, and improve the relevance and adoption of findings. This is particularly important in mental health, where symptoms are subjective and recovery is personal.
For example, in a recent review on identity changes in psychosis, stakeholders emphasized positive self-transformation, an insight researchers may have overlooked. Yet, stakeholder participation in research remains limited. People with mental illness face stigma and marginalization, including from researchers, and often lack the support needed to engage meaningfully. In one survey, 58% of stakeholders said their involvement felt like a checkbox exercise rather than true collaboration.
This disconnect shows in research priorities. Individuals with schizophrenia often value quality of life and psychotherapy, yet most studies focus on comparing medications and rarely measure recovery outcomes. In an ongoing review, only 10% of studies included recovery-oriented outcomes, despite these being top priorities for patients.
To bridge this gap, mental health reviews must better engage stakeholders. Despite clear benefits, such engagement is rare. This review will assess how often and how well stakeholders are involved in mental health reviews. Insights from stakeholders with lived experience of mental illness will help identify the quality of stakeholder engagement and outline future recommendations.