Co-chairs: Michael Green, PhD; Stephen Marder, MD

This panel will discuss the implications of having separate endpoints in clinical trials for non-social neurocognition and social cognition.  In the past 5 years there has been increasing evidence that neurocognition and social cognition form separable factors.  Though there is overlap in some of the underlying processes (e.g., perception, attention, working memory), a variety of statistical methods indicate that models fit better when the two domains are separated compared to when they are combined.  The conclusion of partial overlap between the domains in schizophrenia is consistent with studies from nonclinical social neuroscience.  The separability of factors suggests that certain interventions may influence neurocognition more than social cognition.  Similarly, there are now several studies, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, targeting social cognitive endpoints.  The regulatory implications of this distinction between neurocognition and social cognition endpoints are not understood. 

During this panel, we will: 1) provide an overview of social cognition, how it is distinguished from neurocognition, and how it relates to daily functioning, 2) present data on an ongoing study that is psychometrically evaluating social cognitive measures for use in clinical trials, 3) present data on how findings from clinical trials would be influenced if assessments were limited to neurocognitive measures, 4) discuss the challenges associated with international assessment of social cognition, and 5) hear impressions from regulatory representatives.