# Disrupted self-perspective impact on episodic memory in individuals with self-disorders: A virtual investigation in the Latin Quarter of Paris

Delphine Yeh, Célia Jantac, Sylvain Penaud, Maxine dos Santos, Gilles Martinez, Julie Bourgin-Duchesnay, Valeria Lucarini, Eric Orriols, Alain Berthoz, Marie-Odile Krebs, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Delphine Yeh, Célia Jantac, Sylvain Penaud, Maxine dos Santos, Gilles Martinez, et al. Disrupted self-perspective impact on episodic memory in individuals with self-disorders: A virtual investigation in the Latin Quarter of Paris. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2025, 106, pp.102712. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102712. hal-05243695

HAL Id: hal-05243695

https://hal.science/hal-05243695v1

Submitted on 7 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Disrupted self-perspective impact on episodic memory in individuals with self-disorders: A virtual investigation in the Latin Quarter of Paris

Delphine Yeh<sup>a, *</sup> <sup> ID </sup>, Célia Jantac<sup>b,c,d</sup>, Sylvain Penaud<sup>a</sup>, Maxine Dos Santos<sup>a,e</sup>,
Gilles Martinez<sup>b,c</sup>, Julie Bourgin-Duchesnay<sup>b,c,f,g</sup>, Valeria Lucarini<sup>b,c</sup>, Eric Orriols<sup>a</sup>,
Alain Berthoz<sup>h</sup>, Marie-Odile Krebs<sup>b,c</sup>, Pascale Piolino<sup>a, ** ID</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

Handling editor: Chiara Meneghetti

Keywords:

Self-reference effect

Episodic memory

Autobiographical memory

Schizophrenia

Environmental factors

Virtual reality

## ABSTRACT

Virtual reality (VR) provides a powerful framework for investigating how environmental factors interact with self-referential processes during episodic memory (EM) formation. This study examined whether adopting a self-perspective or another person's perspective while navigating a realistic simulation of the Latin Quarter of Paris differentially influenced EM in individuals at ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis (n = 22), patients with schizophrenia (SCZ; n = 20), and healthy controls (CTL; n = 28). Participants encoded specific events from either their own first-person perspective or an avatar's third-person perspective. After the navigation, they completed a free recall task assessing factual content, spatiotemporal context, and phenomenological details. Results showed that CTL exhibited a self-reference effect, recalling more details and demonstrating enhanced memory binding when encoding events from a self-perspective, compared to an other-perspective. In contrast, UHR and SCZ groups displayed pervasive EM deficits regardless of perspective and lacked this self-referential advantage. Deficits in self-perspective encoding correlated with neurological soft signs, while EM performance was associated with episodic mental time travel, executive functions, sense of presence and environmental familiarity, suggesting integrative processes between the environment, Self, and memory encoding. These findings support the theory of a disruption of minimal selfhood or ipseity in the SCZ spectrum, suggesting that core alterations in first-person anchoring compromise the encoding of experiences into coherent, spatially contextualised episodic memories. Furthermore, the results highlight the importance of naturalistic settings for uncovering how self-referential and environmental factors jointly shape memory in psychosis. VR-based approaches may facilitate early identification of at-risk individuals and inform targeted interventions to promote engagement with the environment, enhancing EM and self-related processes in clinical populations.

## 1. Introduction

Episodic memory (EM) refers to the long-term memory of specific real-life events experienced by the Self at particular times and places

(Tulving, 1985, 2002). It is essential for maintaining a coherent and continuous sense of Self across time (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000; Prebble et al., 2013). Episodic memory relies on the ability to bind multiple features of an experience into a unified memory trace,

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Université Paris Cité, Laboratoire Mémoire, Cerveau et Cognition, F-92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> GHU Paris Psychiatrie et Neurosciences, C'JAAD, Hôpital Sainte Anne, F-75014, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Université Paris Cité, Institut de Psychiatrie et Neurosciences de Paris, INSERM U1266, Laboratoire de Physiopathologie des Maladies Psychiatriques, F-75014, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> Centre Hospitalier d'Erstein, Pôle ISIS, Équipe d'Appui au Rétablissement, F-67150, Erstein, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> Université Paris Cité, CNRS, Integrative Neuroscience and Cognition Center, F-75006, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>f</sup> Groupe Hospitalier Nord Essonne, Hôpital Paris Saclay, F-91400, Orsay, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>g</sup> Université Paris-Saclay, Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, INSERM U1018, Équipe Psychiatrie du Développement et Trajectoires « DevPsy », F-94807, Villejuif, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>h</sup> Collège de France, Chaire Physiologie de la Perception et de l'Action, F-75005, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author. 71 avenue Édouard Vaillant, F-92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.</footnote>

<footnote>** Corresponding author. 71 avenue Édouard Vaillant, F-92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail addresses: delphine.yeh@u-paris.fr (D. Yeh), pascale.piolino@u-paris.fr (P. Piolino).</footnote>
including factual content (what), spatial and temporal context (where and when), and internal context (how) such as bodily sensations, perceptions, emotions, and thoughts. Episodic memory is characterised by autonoetic consciousness, which allows individuals to mentally re-experience specific past events or project themselves into future ones from an embodied first-person perspective (Tulving, 2002). The formation of EM is also linked to a sense of presence, i.e. the subjective feeling of 'being there' in the experienced environment (Makowski et al., 2017; Sanchez-Vives & Slater, 2005). Spatial information is fundamental to EM, providing the cognitive scaffold that anchors experiences within a coherent spatial framework and supports their organisation into integrated episodic memories (Fan et al., 2023; Robin et al., 2016). The hippocampus, involved in spatial, temporal, and episodic processing, plays a critical role in binding these features into unified memory traces (Burgess et al., 2002; Byrne et al., 2007; Moscovitch et al., 2016). In real-world settings, such as navigating a city, EM is referred to as episodic autobiographical memory (EAM; Piolino et al., 2009; Staniloiu et al., 2020), and is inherently tied to one's sense of Self.

The Self comprises two key facets: the narrative Self, which refers to the reflective, conceptual representation of identity over time, and the minimal Self, which corresponds to the fundamental, pre-reflective, and embodied sense of being the subject of experience from one's perspective (Blanke & Metzinger, 2009; Christoff et al., 2011; Gallagher, 2000; Prebble et al., 2013; Vogeley et al., 2004). The sense of Self is altered in many disorders, raising questions about the interplay between an altered Self and EM in everyday contexts. In the schizophrenia spectrum, self-disorders are highly prevalent (Henriksen et al., 2021), emerge early in the 'ultra-high risk' (UHR) prodromal phase, and predict conversion to full-blown schizophrenia (SCZ) (Henriksen et al., 2021; Nelson et al., 2012; Stanghellini et al., 2012). Self-disorders in the schizophrenia spectrum primarily affect the minimal Self. According to the ipseity-disturbance model of schizophrenia (Sass & Parnas, 2003), a core feature of self-disorders is altered ipseity, that is, a weakening of the first-personal character of experience. This alteration manifests through two key mechanisms: hyper-reflexivity, in which normally tacit mental processes become the object of excessive attention, and diminished self-affection or self-presence, which refers to a reduced sense of existing as the embodied subject of experience.

We propose that such disruptions compromise the role of the first-person Self as a stable experiential and spatiotemporal anchor for EM encoding. Specifically, hyper-reflexivity may induce a detached, objectified mode of encoding, while diminished self-presence may impair the embodied egocentric reference frame required for grounding events within their spatial environment. Together, these disturbances are authorised to compromise the binding of an event's features (what and how) to a coherent spatiotemporal context (where and when). Although several studies have documented EM and EAM impairments in patients with SCZ (Danion et al., 2007; D'Argembeau et al., 2008; Kwok et al., 2021; Raffard et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2019) and UHR individuals (Berna et al., 2016; Cowan et al., 2024; Greenland-White et al., 2017), few have focused specifically on how EM impairments related to self-disorders, and particularly to ipseity disturbance. The present study aims to bridge this gap by investigating the influence of self-perspective during EM encoding in ecological environments, clarifying how disruptions in the minimal Self contribute to EM impairments in the schizophrenia spectrum.

Traditionally, EM assessments have relied on controlled laboratory tasks involving the encoding and recall of simple, decontextualised material, such as word or object lists. These studies have consistently shown a self-reference effect, where new information is remembered more effectively when encoded in relation to oneself (Klein, 2012; Rogers et al., 1977; Symons & Johnson, 1997), enhancing factual and contextual dimensions of EM, as well as the subjective sense of remembering (Conway & Dewhurst, 1995; Lalanne et al., 2013; Serbun et al., 2011). Conversely, UHR and SCZ individuals fail to exhibit the self-reference effect, potentially reflecting impaired self-related

processing (Compère et al., 2016; Harvey et al., 2011; Jia et al., 2019; Jimenez et al., 2018). However, traditional laboratory tasks have limitations, as they typically focus on a given EM component rather than examining the dynamic interactions between EM features in real-life contexts, and do not consider the embodied and spatially-grounded nature of real-world EM.

To address these limitations, more ecological paradigms, such as those assessing autobiographical memory through structured interviews (Addis et al., 2007; Piolino et al., 2009), or capturing real-life events via SenseCam recordings (Lenormand et al., 2024), offer a richer and more naturalistic framework for studying EM in real-world settings. In parallel, a growing body of work has focused on how authentic or simulated environments better capture real-world memory richness, highlighting the importance of physical context and presence in shaping what and how we remember. Research on large-scale spatial memory has demonstrated that navigating real or realistic environments provided a spatial scaffold for episodic encoding and retrieval (Berthoz, 2000; Burgess et al., 2002; Meneghetti et al., 2014; Robin et al., 2016; Shelton & Gabrieli, 2002). Recent research has embraced virtual reality (VR), a computer-based technology that creates multisensory, three-dimensional environments in which participants can be fully immersed and interact, as a powerful tool to enhance the ecological validity of EM assessments while maintaining experimental control (for reviews: Plancher & Piolino, 2017; Reggente, 2023; Smith, 2019; Tuena et al., 2019). Virtual reality embeds events within spatial contexts foundational to EM encoding and retrieval, thereby offering a unique opportunity to investigate how different spatial reference frames contribute to memory formation. Indeed, allocentric representations encode spatial information based on the relationships among elements in the environment, independent of the observer's position, while egocentric representations encode spatial information relative to the observer's current position or viewpoint. Crucially, VR enables precise manipulation of viewpoint, making it possible to investigate how self-perspective influences EM formation.

Using VR protocols, studies have shown that adopting a self-perspective during both encoding and retrieval is crucial for rich episodic and autobiographical memories (Bergouignan et al., 2014; Piolino et al., 2006; St. Jacques et al., 2017; Sutin & Robins, 2010). Conversely, mentally adopting another person's perspective (i.e., imagining oneself in someone else's position), which requires mental transposition of one's egocentric experiential space to an external body frame and modelling of another person's mental state, affects EM encoding (Buckner & Carroll, 2007; Vogeley et al., 2001). Penaud et al. (2022) used a between-subjects design to compare self-vs. other-perspective encoding in a naturalistic VR simulation of the Latin Quarter of Paris, enriched with specific events. They found that adopting a self-perspective at encoding enhanced both objective and subjective EM components, including feature binding and vivid re-experiencing. These results demonstrated the critical role of self-perspective in EM formation and retrieval, while also illustrating how ecologically valid settings can deepen our understanding of the dynamic interaction between environment and the Self in shaping episodic remembering.

Building on this, the present study extends the approach to clinical populations with self-disorders, investigating how disruptions in self-experience affect EM during naturalistic spatial navigation. Specifically, it examines how self-perspective in a naturalistic environment influences EM formation in UHR and SCZ populations, compared to healthy controls (CTL). Virtual reality was used to evaluate EM for specific events embedded within a realistic simulation of the Latin Quarter of Paris, designed to approximate real-life experiences. Participants were instructed to memorise these specific events while navigating the environment from either a self-perspective (navigation centred on the participant's own viewpoint) or an other-perspective (navigation centred on the perspective of an avatar that participants followed through the city). A free recall task assessed factual content, spatiotemporal context, and phenomenological details. Unlike Penaud
et al. (2022), the present study used a within-subject design where all participants experienced both perspective conditions, enabling direct intra-individual comparisons, thereby reducing inter-individual variability and enhancing statistical power. Additionally, EM correlates were assessed, offering new insights into factors underlying EM impairment and preservation in clinical populations.

We tested three main hypotheses. First (H1), we expected that in the control group (CTL), EM performance would be enhanced in the self-perspective condition compared to the other-perspective condition. Second (H2), this self-perspective advantage would be diminished or absent in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis (UHR) and in patients with schizophrenia (SCZ), reflecting impairments in self-related processing. Third (H3), we anticipated that in the UHR and SCZ groups, EM performance would correlate with neurocognitive and clinical variables, including symptom severity, executive functioning, and the capacity for episodic mental time travel.

# 2. Material & methods

## 2.1. Participants

A priori power analysis based on previous findings (Penaud et al., 2022) determined a minimum sample size of 58 participants using G\*Power 3 (Faul et al., 2007), i.e. 20 participants per group. The study included 28 healthy controls (CTL), 22 UHR individuals, and 20 patients diagnosed with SCZ. Clinical groups were recruited from the GHU Paris Psychiatry and Neuroscience hospital, and CTL were recruited among students from the Psychology Department at Université Paris Cité. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants or their legal representatives. The study complied with French regulations and was approved by the CPP Île-de-France III ethics committee (reference: D14-P008, approved on 2014-07-08).

Inclusion criteria required participants to be aged between 15 and 27 years old and to be native French speakers. Ultra-high risk individuals met the 'at-risk' criteria based on the positive symptoms subscale of the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental State (CAARMS) (Krebs et al., 2014). Patients with SCZ were diagnosed according to the DSM-IV criteria, following the Diagnosis Interview for Genetic Studies 3.0 (DIGS) (Nurnberger et al., 1994). Healthy controls were required to have no personal psychiatric history and no familial history of psychosis or developmental disorder.

Exclusion criteria for all three groups included pregnancy,

intellectual deficiency, sensorimotor deficits, severe physical illnesses, current depression, ongoing benzodiazepine treatment, severe substance use disorders lasting more than five years, or involuntary hospitalisation.

## 2.2. General procedure

The experimental procedure for assessing naturalistic EM was adapted from prior VR studies (e.g., Abichou et al., 2019; Jebara et al., 2014; Plancher et al., 2012), particularly from Penaud et al. (2022). Participants first completed a training session in a separate virtual urban environment, then explored half of the virtual Latin Quarter under one of two experimental conditions: self-perspective or other-perspective. Following navigation, they completed a free recall task of the six specific events encountered. The procedure was then repeated with the remaining half of the virtual city under the alternate perspective. The order of perspective conditions was counterbalanced across participants. Finally, participants' prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter of Paris was assessed. In a separate session, participants underwent clinical and neurocognitive assessments.

## 2.3. Virtual reality episodic memory assessment (VR-EM test)

The procedure of the VR episodic memory assessment (VR-EM test) is depicted in Fig. 1.

### 2.3.1. Virtual environment, episodic memory encoding, experimental conditions

A virtual city representing the Latin Quarter of Paris was created with 3DVIA Studio Pro (Dassault Systèmes, France). The virtual environment included authentic ambient sounds, such as vehicular traffic noises or human voices, and twelve specific events encountered during navigation (e.g., witnessing a car crash, encountering a group of joggers, interacting with a girl handing out a teddy bear) (Fig. 2). The virtual city was projected in a dark, quiet room on a large screen (1932 × 1080 pixels, covering around 66° field of view). Participants did not wear a head-mounted display; instead, they experienced the environment from a seated position in front of the projection screen. They navigated as pedestrians, using a joystick to control their movement along a predetermined path that was identical for all participants. Movement speed was capped to ensure a uniform navigation pace across participants, who were further instructed not to stop or turn back, and to maintain a

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Virtual reality episodic memory assessment (VR-EM test).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Example of an event (a girl handing out her teddy bear) seen in the self-perspective (A) and in the other-perspective (B).</figcaption></figure>

constant speed that was neither too slow nor too fast. Participants were informed that they would be immersed twice in a virtual city resembling Paris. They were instructed to explore the environment while paying attention to the specific events (intentional encoding), including perceptual details and spatial-temporal contexts, i.e. the *what*, *where*, and *when* of each event. They verbalised whenever a specific event was encountered to ensure attention. Prior to the test session, participants underwent a training in a separate environment to familiarise themselves with the setup and task.

Participants navigated half of the Latin Quarter in the self-perspective condition and the other half in the other-perspective condition, with the order counterbalanced across participants to reduce potential systematic biases associated with specific event characteristics. In the self-perspective condition, participants directly experienced events and interactions with avatars. They were instructed to focus on their interactions with the environment and their self-awareness in the present moment. In the other-perspective condition, they followed an independent virtual character named Bob, a journalist, as he walked through the virtual environment and interacted with other avatars. In this condition, participants were asked to shift from their self-perspective and mentally adopt Bob's perspective. The camera field of view was kept identical in both conditions to ensure consistency, with only the initial camera position differing: at the avatar's eye level for the self-perspective condition and slightly elevated and set back for the other-perspective condition. Following each navigation, participants' sense of presence was assessed using the Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ) (Schubert et al., 2001), which included 14 items self-rated on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 0 to 6.

### 2.3.2. Free recall of the specific events encountered in the virtual Latin Quarter

A comprehensive assessment was specifically designed to capture the core components of EM, drawing on recommendations for improving experimental EM evaluation (e.g., Pause et al., 2013; Picard et al., 2012), as well as validated VR procedures (Jebara et al., 2014; Penaud et al., 2022; Picard et al., 2017; Plancher et al., 2012). This assessment targeted three fundamental dimensions of EM: the content of the event (*what*), its spatial context (*where*) including both egocentric and allocentric information, and its temporal context (*when*) including temporal position and sequential information. This multidimensional framework enabled the independent examination of each component, as well as the quantification of their integration through episodic binding. Such an approach offers a refined and ecologically valid understanding of the mechanisms underlying real-world episodic recollection.

Following each navigation, participants verbally recalled all events encountered from either their self-perspective or that of the avatar Bob, providing a comprehensive and detailed description of each event. They were asked to provide a factual account of the event, including the most salient perceptual details (e.g., “one of the cars was grey”). Regarding spatial context, they were required to indicate the location of each event relative to nearby distinguishable landmarks, such as monuments or

shops (allocentric location, e.g. “the car accident occurred in front of a large historical building known as the Sénat”) and specify whether the event was witnessed in front of them, to their left, or their right (egocentric location). Regarding temporal context, participants were instructed to position each event as occurring at the start, middle, or end of the circuit (temporal position, e.g., “the car accident was at the end of the path”) and to recall the sequential order in which the events were encountered (temporal sequence, e.g., “the car accident was the fifth event”). Regarding phenomenology, participants were invited to rate their sense of remembering (“To what extent can you mentally re-experience the specific event with its context?”) and the self-relevance (“To what extent does this event refer to important aspects of your personality?”) of each event on scales ranging from 0 (‘Not at all’) to 5 (‘Extremely’), as well as the valence of each event on a scale from 0 (‘Very negative’) to 5 (‘Very positive’). These subjective self-ratings have previously demonstrated good reliability and sensitivity in similar VR paradigms (Penaud et al., 2022; Yeh et al., 2024), and were used to complement objective memory performance by capturing the phenomenological richness of recollection.

Scoring was conducted by trained raters who were blind to the experimental conditions, using a predefined scoring grid specifying correct responses for each event's *what* (including details), *where*, and *when* components, thereby ensuring both accuracy and consistency in scoring. For each participant, the number of events recalled was recorded, with a maximum of six events per condition. Additionally, the degree of precision for each event description was recorded, with a maximum of two points for each category of content (i.e., What, Details, Where, When). The factual content (‘What’) was scored as follows: two points if at least one specific element related to the core content was provided, and one point if the event was recalled without specific details. The details were scored based on the number of specific perceptual details provided (‘Details’), with a maximal score of two points: a recall with one specific perceptual detail received one point, while recalls containing two or more details were awarded two points. The spatial context score (‘Where – Total’) combined the allocentric location of the event (‘Where – Allocentric’), worth one point, and its egocentric location (‘Where – Egocentric’), also worth one point. The temporal context score (‘When – Total’) combined the temporal position of the event (‘When – Position’), worth one point, and its sequential order (‘When – Sequence’), also worth one point. The total score per condition was obtained by summing the ‘What’, ‘Details’, ‘Where – Total’, and ‘When – Total’ scores, with a maximum possible score of 48 by condition. The mean binding per event was determined by dividing the total score per condition by the number of recalled events, with a maximum possible score of 8. The binding, expressed as a percentage, was determined by dividing the total score per condition by the maximum possible score of 48. The mean ratings for the sense of remembering, self-relevance, and valence per condition were also computed.
### 2.3.3. Questionnaires on familiarity with the Latin Quarter and video game experience

After completing all navigations and memory tasks, participants filled out a questionnaire evaluating their prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter of Paris. This questionnaire was developed in a previous study (Penaud et al., 2022) and derived from prior research on familiarity with environments (Gale et al., 1990; Prestopnik & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2000). It included six self-reported assessments on 6-point Likert scales, ranging from 0 ('Not at all') to 5 ('Extremely'), that assessed participants' cultural knowledge of the Latin Quarter (e.g., history, street names, places, monuments), their frequency of previous visits, their enjoyment of the area, their related autobiographical memories, their positive appreciation of the Latin Quarter, and the recency of their last visit (ranging from 'Never' to 'A few days ago'). The total score for prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter was calculated by summing the six ratings. Additionally, participants indicated their frequency of video game use on a single self-reported scale ranging from 0 ('Not at all') to 10 ('Very frequently') (e.g., Maselli & Slater, 2014).

### 2.4. Clinical and neurocognitive assessments

Clinical and neurocognitive assessments were conducted by trained clinicians in a separate session. The psychopathological evaluation for the UHR and SCZ groups included the following assessments: the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale – Expanded (BPRS-E) (Dingemans et al., 1995; Mouaffak et al., 2010) for general psychiatric symptoms; the Positive And Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS) (Kay et al., 1987; Lançon et al., 1999) for schizophrenia symptoms; the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (Montgomery & Åsberg, 1979) for depressive symptoms; the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) (Morosini et al., 2000) for daily life social functioning; and the Neurological Soft Signs Examination (NSSE) (Krebs et al., 2000) for subtle neurological anomalies. Additionally, all three groups completed the self-reported Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ) (Raine, 1991) for schizotypal traits. Antipsychotic medication was reported as olanzapine dose equivalents using the 'DDD method' (Leucht et al., 2016).

Neurocognitive assessments administered to all three groups included the following tests: the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – 4th edition (WAIS-IV) (Wechsler, 2008), which provided the full-scale intelligence quotient (FSIQ) as a global intelligence score; the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) (Delis et al., 1988) assessing verbal EM; the Spatial Span from the Wechsler Memory Scale – 3rd edition (WMS-III) (Wechsler, 1997) assessing visuospatial working memory; the Verbal Fluency test (Cardebat et al., 1990) providing an index of executive control over memory retrieval; the Trail Making Test (TMT) (Reitan, 1956) for cognitive flexibility; and the Stroop Colour and Word test (SCWT) (Stroop, 1935) for inhibition. An executive functions score was calculated as the mean of the z-scores from the Spatial Span, Verbal Fluency, TMT and SCWT total scores, obtained using normative data (Bayard et al., 2023; Wechsler, 1997).

Furthermore, the ability to evoke specific personal events and engage in episodic mental time travel (EAM and episodic future thinking) was assessed using the TEMPau (Piolino et al., 2009), in its temporally-extended version (derived from Abram et al., 2014). Participants were asked to evoke specific personal events in the past, present, and future. Scoring was based on uniqueness, specificity, general and detailed time, general and detailed space, non-spatiotemporal contextual details, and phenomenological details. Scores ranged from 0 to 8 for each memory. Finally, the self-reported Tennessee Self-Concept Scale – Second Edition (TSCS-2) (Duval et al., 2007; Fitts & Warren, 1996) was administered to measure self-esteem, using a temporally-extended version that evaluates the valence of self-representations in the past, present, and future.

### 2.5. Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.2.3 (R Core Team, 2024). Significance tests were based on $\alpha$ = .05. Descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and *post-hoc* comparisons corrected with the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) method (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995), were performed on sociodemographic, cognitive, and clinical data, along with TEMPau and TSCS-2 scores, prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter, and video game experience, using the *compareGroups* package (Subirana et al., 2014).

Two-way mixed analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were computed to examine the interaction and main effects of *Group* (UHR/SCZ/CTL) and *Perspective* (Self/Other) on navigation duration, sense of presence, and free recall of specific events, using the *stats* package (R Core Team, 2024). Participants' prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter and years of education were included as covariates. Given that navigation duration differed between both perspective conditions, navigation duration per condition was included as an additional covariate in the analysis of free recall scores. *Post-hoc* comparisons were based on estimated marginal means from the *emmeans* package (Lenth, 2022) with Bonferroni correction.

Analyses of EM correlates were conducted separately for the CTL group on the one hand, and the combined UHR and SCZ groups on the other hand, within each perspective condition. Partial correlations controlling for prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter and years of education were computed between free recall scores and sense of presence, cognition, psychopathology, and TEMPau and TSCS-2 scores, using the *stats* (R Core Team, 2024) and *ppcor* (Kim, 2015) packages. Partial correlations controlling for years of education were also computed between free recall scores and prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter. All correlations were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the BH method. Plots were generated using the *ggplot2* (Wickham, 2009), *ggpubr* (Kassambara, 2020), and *corrplot* (Wei & Simko, 2021) packages.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Sample description

The three groups were matched on sex, age, valence of self-representations over time (TSCS-2), video game experience, and cognitive scores except for the WAIS FSIQ, where SCZ exhibited a significantly lower score than CTL. The SCZ also had significantly fewer years of education than CTL.

Psychopathology assessments indicated mild psychiatric symptoms severity for both UHR and SCZ (BPRS Total), with no significant differences between the groups. However, SCZ showed greater impairment than UHR in positive symptoms and general psychopathology (PANSS Positive and General psychopathology scores), poorer social and occupational functioning (SOFAS Total), and higher severity of neurological soft signs (NSSE Total, Motor Integration, and Sensory Integration factors). Conversely, UHR exhibited more severe depressive symptoms than SCZ (MADRS Total). The UHR and SCZ did not differ significantly on olanzapine dose equivalents. Additionally, both groups presented more severe schizotypal traits than CTL (SPQ Total); UHR also had more severe negative (SPQ Negative) and disorganisation traits (SPQ Disorganisation) than both CTL and SCZ.

Both UHR and SCZ performed significantly lower than CTL in evoking episodic autobiographical events and mentally travelling in subjective time across all three temporalities (TEMPau Past, Present, and Future). However, no significant differences were observed between UHR and SCZ.

Finally, regarding prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter, both UHR and SCZ reported significantly lower familiarity than CTL (Total score), particularly lower cultural knowledge of the Latin Quarter. The SCZ also declared significantly less enjoyment and less positive appreciation of
the Latin Quarter than the CTL, and their last visit to the area was less recent than that of the CTL (Table 1).

## 3.2. Navigation duration and sense of presence

The ANCOVA results indicated no significant interaction or main effects of *Group* and *Perspective* on the sense of presence. However, *Perspective* had a significant main effect on navigation duration. *Post-hoc* contrasts indicated significantly longer navigation duration in the *other-perspective* than *self-perspective* condition, independently of the group (mean differences $M_{diff} = 50.09$, SE = 20.12, *p* = .015, Cohen's *d* = 0.31, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.55]; respective means: $M_{OTHER} = 619$ s, $M_{SELF} = 568$ s) (Table 2).

## 3.3. Free recall of the specific events encountered in the virtual Latin Quarter

The ANCOVA on free recall scores indicated a significant main effect of *Group* on all EM scores, except for phenomenology scores. Additionally, *Perspective* had a significant main effect on the ‘What’ score, the number of details, the detailed ‘What’, and binding (event mean and proportion). A significant interaction effect of *Group* and *Perspective* was also observed on the number of events recalled, the ‘What’ score, number of details, detailed ‘What’, allocentric spatial memory, temporal memory (total ‘When’), binding (proportion), and sense of remembering (Table 2, Fig. 3; see Supplementary Table S1 for post-hoc statistics).

*Post-hoc* contrasts for significant interactions indicated that in the *self-perspective* condition, both UHR and SCZ scored significantly lower than CTL on the number of events recalled, ‘What’ score, number of details, detailed ‘What’, allocentric spatial memory, total ‘When’, and binding proportion. Additionally, in the *other-perspective* condition, SCZ scored significantly lower than CTL on the number of events recalled and binding proportion, and UHR scored significantly lower than CTL on binding proportion. In both *self-* and *other-perspective* conditions, no differences were found between UHR and SCZ for all EM scores. Furthermore, CTL scored significantly lower in the *other-perspective* compared to the *self-perspective* condition on the number of details, detailed ‘What’, and binding proportion. No significant differences were found between *self-* and *other-perspective* conditions within the UHR nor the SCZ groups. Although a significant interaction was observed for the sense of remembering, *post-hoc* analyses revealed no significant differences across *Group* and *Perspective*.

*Post-hoc* contrasts for significant main effects of *Group* indicated that, independently of perspective conditions, both UHR and SCZ scored significantly lower than CTL for egocentric spatial memory, total ‘Where’, temporal sequence, and event mean binding. Although a significant main effect of *Group* was observed for temporal position, *post-hoc* analyses revealed no significant differences between groups.

*Post-hoc* contrasts for significant main effects of *Perspective* indicated that, independently of the group, event mean binding was significantly lower in the *other-perspective* than in the *self-perspective* condition.

Code for significant post-hoc contrasts corrected with the Bonferroni method (detailed post-hoc statistics in Supplementary Table S1):

## 3.4. Correlates of the episodic memory of specific events

In the CTL group, partial correlations indicated that in the *self-perspective* condition, EM ‘What’ score was significantly correlated with the sense of presence (partial correlation: $pcor = 0.46$, *p*-value adjusted for multiple comparisons: $p_{adj} = 0.04$, 95% CI = [0.10, 0.71]). No other significant correlations were observed in this condition, nor in the *other-perspective* condition. Additionally, no significant correlations were found between free recall scores and prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter.

For the combined UHR and SCZ groups, partial correlations indicated that in the *self-perspective* condition, EM temporal sequence was

significantly correlated with the sense of presence ($pcor = 0.37$, $p_{adj} = 0.04$, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.61]), executive functions ($pcor = 0.54$, $p_{adj} = 0.01$, 95% CI = [0.25, 0.73]), and NSSE Motor Integration ($pcor = -0.39$, $p_{adj} = 0.04$, 95% CI = [-0.62, -0.10]). Additionally, EM mean event binding was also correlated with the sense of presence ($pcor = 0.40$, $p_{adj} = 0.03$, 95% CI = [0.11, 0.63]), and EAM (TEMPau Past - Total episodic free recall) ($pcor = 0.41$, $p_{adj} = 0.04$, 95% CI = [0.12, 0.63]). No significant correlations were observed between EM scores and valence of self-representations, psychopathology besides NSSE Motor Integration, and cognition besides executive functions. In the *other-perspective* condition, no significant correlation with EM scores was found.

Additionally, for the combined UHR and SCZ groups, partial correlations revealed significant and positive correlations between several EM scores and prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter (Fig. 4). In the *self-perspective* condition, temporal EM was correlated with positive appreciation of the Latin Quarter. Moreover, sense of presence was also correlated with positive appreciation of the Latin Quarter ($pcor = 0.46$, $p_{adj} = 0.03$, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.70]). In the *other-perspective* condition, the ‘What’ score was correlated with cultural knowledge about the Latin Quarter, spatial EM was correlated with global familiarity and recency of the last visit, and EM binding was correlated with global familiarity, cultural knowledge and positive appreciation of the area.

# 4. Discussion

The present study examined how adopting a self-perspective during real-life event encoding influences episodic memory (EM) in individuals at ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis and patients with schizophrenia (SCZ), compared to healthy controls (CTL). Using virtual reality (VR) to enhance ecological validity and reveal the interplay between self-referential processes, environmental context, and memory functioning, participants were immersed in a realistic urban environment where they encountered specific everyday events. The key finding was that encoding events from a self-perspective, rather than an other-perspective, enhanced EM recall in CTL but not in UHR and SCZ. Specifically, CTL showed more accurate memory for details and stronger binding when encoding events from their own perspective. In contrast, UHR and SCZ demonstrated pervasive EM deficits, with no significant differences between perspective conditions, indicating a lack of self-referential memory benefit. Additionally, EM performance was associated with measures of episodic autobiographical memory (EAM), subtle motor integration, environmental familiarity, sense of presence, and executive functions, which we interpret through the lens of the ip-tdisturbance model (Sass & Parnas, 2003). This model provides a unifying framework for understanding how disruptions in the minimal Self, particularly in first-person anchoring, compromise the encoding of experiences into coherent, spatially contextualised episodic memories.

## 4.1. The beneficial impact of self-perspective on naturalistic episodic memory in healthy individuals

Healthy individuals exhibited a self-reference effect, demonstrating higher EM performance for specific events encoded from a self-perspective compared to an other-perspective. This enhancement was driven by improved binding of episodic elements (*what*, *where*, and *when*), while subjective phenomenology (sense of remembering, self-relevance, valence) remained similar across perspectives. These findings align with prior research demonstrating the benefits of self-related processing on EM formation, in both traditional laboratory tasks (Klein, 2012; Rogers et al., 1977) and naturalistic VR paradigms that manipulated self-perspective (Bergouignan et al., 2014; Iriye & St. Jacques, 2021; Serino et al., 2023). In particular, this study replicates previous work using the same virtual simulation of the Latin Quarter of Paris (Penaud et al., 2022). However, our within-subject design and control for prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter may explain the lack of
<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Summary statistics for socio-demography, cognition, psychopathology and medication, episodic autobiographical event evocation, valence of self-representations, prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter of Paris, and video game experience, by Group.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">UHR (N = 22)</th><th colspan="2">SCZ (N = 20)</th><th colspan="2">CTL (N = 28)</th><th colspan="4">One-way independent ANOVA</th><th rowspan="2">Significant pairwise differences</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>M (SD)</th><th>n</th><th>M (SD)</th><th>n</th><th>M (SD)</th><th>F</th><th>p</th><th>η<sup>2</sup><sub>p</sub></th><th>95 % CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="13"><strong>Sociodemography</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="13" style="text-align: center;">F (2,67)</td></tr><tr><td>Sex:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>F – Number (%)</td><td>22</td><td>8 (36.4 %)</td><td>20</td><td>8 (40.0 %)</td><td>28</td><td>13 (46.4 %)</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>M – Number (%)</td><td></td><td>14 (63.6 %)</td><td></td><td>12 (60.0 %)</td><td></td><td>15 (53.6 %)</td><td></td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>22</td><td>21.5 (2.46)</td><td>20</td><td>22.1 (2.99)</td><td>28</td><td>20.9 (2.17)</td><td>1.44</td><td>0.244</td><td>0.04</td><td>[0, 0.15]</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Number of years of education</td><td>22</td><td>13.2 (2.41)</td><td>20</td><td>12.3 (2.06)</td><td>28</td><td>13.7 (1.05)</td><td>3.15</td><td><strong>0.049</strong></td><td>0.09</td><td>[0, 0.22]</td><td>SCZ &lt; CTL</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="13"><strong>Cognition</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="13" style="text-align: center;">F (2,60)</td></tr><tr><td>WAIS – Full-scale intelligence quotient (FSIQ)</td><td>21</td><td>108 (15.4)</td><td>15</td><td>104 (10.4)</td><td>27</td><td>114 (12.6)</td><td>3.25</td><td><strong>0.046</strong></td><td>0.10</td><td>[0, 0.24]</td><td>SCZ &lt; CTL</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CVLT – Delayed free recall (words)</td><td>21</td><td>14.3 (2.01)</td><td>15</td><td>12.9 (2.78)</td><td>27</td><td>14.3 (3.20)</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.440</td><td>0.03</td><td>[0, 0.13]</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Spatial Span (age-scaled score)</td><td>21</td><td>11.4 (2.77)</td><td>15</td><td>11.0 (2.24)</td><td>27</td><td>12.0 (2.69)</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.477</td><td>0.02</td><td>[0, 0.12]</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Verbal Fluency – ‘P’ + ‘Animals’ Total (words)</td><td>21</td><td>54.7 (11.6)</td><td>15</td><td>55.2 (11.2)</td><td>27</td><td>58.1 (11.6)</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.536</td><td>0.02</td><td>[0, 0.12]</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Trail Making Test – B-A (seconds)</td><td>21</td><td>35.4 (16.2)</td><td>15</td><td>46.6 (35.4)</td><td>27</td><td>30.6 (12.5)</td><td>2.78</td><td>0.070</td><td>0.08</td><td>[0, 0.23]</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Stroop Test – Interference-Naming (seconds)</td><td>21</td><td>31.0 (11.0)</td><td>15</td><td>37.3 (16.2)</td><td>27</td><td>32.3 (14.9)</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.396</td><td>0.03</td><td>[0, 0.14]</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Executive functions (z-scores mean)</td><td>21</td><td>-0.38 (0.53)</td><td>15</td><td>-0.44 (0.79)</td><td>27</td><td>-0.26 (0.64)</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.655</td><td>0.01</td><td>[0, 0.10]</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="13"><strong>Psychopathology and medication</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="13" style="text-align: center;">F (1,40)</td></tr><tr><td>BPRS – Total</td><td>22</td><td>45.1 (10.5)</td><td>20</td><td>45.6 (9.08)</td><td>0</td><td>–</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.899</td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.07]</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PANSS – Total</td><td>22</td><td>59.0 (14.2)</td><td>20</td><td>62.7 (16.5)</td><td>0</td><td>–</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.476</td><td>0.01</td><td>[0, 0.17]</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PANSS – Positive</td><td>22</td><td>9.71 (3.13)</td><td>20</td><td>13.4 (4.32)</td><td>0</td><td>–</td><td>8.95</td><td><strong>0.005</strong></td><td>0.20</td><td>[0.02, 0.42]</td><td>UHR &lt; SCZ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PANSS – Negative</td><td>22</td><td>13.8 (5.78)</td><td>20</td><td>16.6 (6.67)</td><td>0</td><td>–</td><td>1.95</td><td>0.171</td><td>0.05</td><td>[0, 0.25]</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PANSS – General psychopathology</td><td>22</td><td>4.62 (1.32)</td><td>20</td><td>6.31 (3.42)</td><td>0</td><td>–</td><td>4.33</td><td>0.045</td><td>0.11</td><td>[0, 0.32]</td><td>UHR &lt; SCZ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MADRS – Total</td><td>22</td><td>21.3 (9.68)</td><td>20</td><td>12.9 (5.23)</td><td>0</td><td>–</td><td>9.85</td><td><strong>0.003</strong></td><td>0.22</td><td>[0.03, 0.44]</td><td>UHR &gt; SCZ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SOFAS – Total</td><td>22</td><td>57.8 (7.41)</td><td>20</td><td>52.0 (9.14)</td><td>0</td><td>–</td><td>4.49</td><td><strong>0.041</strong></td><td>0.11</td><td>[0, 0.33]</td><td>UHR &gt; SCZ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NSSE – Total</td><td>22</td><td>4.07 (5.40)</td><td>20</td><td>8.05 (3.58)</td><td>0</td><td>–</td><td>7.76</td><td><strong>0.008</strong></td><td>0.16</td><td>[0.01, 0.37]</td><td>UHR &lt; SCZ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NSSE – Motor coordination</td><td>22</td><td>2.18 (3.14)</td><td>20</td><td>3.55 (1.88)</td><td>0</td><td>–</td><td>2.87</td><td>0.098</td><td>0.07</td><td>[0, 0.25]</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NSSE – Motor integration</td><td>22</td><td>0.80 (1.23)</td><td>20</td><td>1.82 (1.48)</td><td>0</td><td>–</td><td>6.05</td><td><strong>0.018</strong></td><td>0.13</td><td>[0, 0.33]</td><td>UHR &lt; SCZ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NSSE – Sensory integration</td><td>22</td><td>1.09 (1.63)</td><td>20</td><td>2.67 (1.58)</td><td>0</td><td>–</td><td>10.16</td><td><strong>0.003</strong></td><td>0.20</td><td>[0.03, 0.41]</td><td>UHR &lt; SCZ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="13" style="text-align: center;">F (2,45)</td></tr><tr><td>SPQ – Total</td><td>22</td><td>32.5 (11.8)</td><td>20</td><td>23.7 (13.7)</td><td>6</td><td>8.83 (12.2)</td><td>8.77</td><td><strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.28</td><td>[0.07, 0.46]</td><td>UHR &gt; CTL; SCZ &gt; CTL</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SPQ – Positive</td><td>22</td><td>9.50 (6.01)</td><td>20</td><td>8.80 (7.74)</td><td>6</td><td>3.33 (3.50)</td><td>2.11</td><td>0.133</td><td>0.09</td><td>[0, 0.25]</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SPQ – Negative</td><td>22</td><td>18.6 (6.87)</td><td>20</td><td>12.4 (7.16)</td><td>6</td><td>4.67 (8.07)</td><td>10.12</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.31</td><td>[0.09, 0.49]</td><td>UHR &gt; CTL; UHR &gt; SCZ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SPQ – Disorganisation</td><td>22</td><td>8.55 (3.29)</td><td>20</td><td>5.10 (3.49)</td><td>6</td><td>1.83 (3.13)</td><td>11.49</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.34</td><td>[0.12, 0.51]</td><td>UHR &gt; CTL; UHR &gt; SCZ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="13" style="text-align: center;">F (1,18)</td></tr><tr><td>Medication – Olanzapine dose equivalent (mg)</td><td>2</td><td>5.00 (3.54)</td><td>18</td><td>10.9 (6.33)</td><td>0</td><td>–</td><td>1.61</td><td>0.220</td><td>0.08</td><td>[0, 0.37]</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">UHR (N = 22)</th><th colspan="2">SCZ (N = 20)</th><th colspan="2">CTL (N = 28)</th><th colspan="4">One-way independent ANOVA</th><th rowspan="2">Significant pairwise<br>differences</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>M (SD)</th><th>n</th><th>M (SD)</th><th>n</th><th>M (SD)</th><th>F</th><th>p</th><th>η<sup>2</sup><sub>p</sub></th><th>95 % CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="13"><strong>Evocation of episodic autobiographical events<br>(TEMPau – temporally-extended version)</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="13" style="text-align: center;">F<br>(2,67)</td></tr><tr><td>Present – Age of projection</td><td>22</td><td>21.5<br>(2.36)</td><td>20</td><td>22.1<br>(2.99)</td><td>28</td><td>20.9<br>(2.17)</td><td>1.46</td><td>0.239</td><td>0.04</td><td>[0, 0.15]</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Present – Total episodic free recall</td><td>22</td><td>3.73<br>(2.80)</td><td>20</td><td>3.80<br>(2.48)</td><td>28</td><td>5.79<br>(1.51)</td><td>6.72</td><td><strong>0.002</strong></td><td>0.17</td><td>[0.03,<br>0.32]</td><td>UHR &lt; CTL; SCZ &lt;<br>CTL</td></tr><tr><td>Past – Age of projection</td><td>22</td><td>12.7<br>(3.80)</td><td>20</td><td>14.6<br>(3.49)</td><td>28</td><td>13.6<br>(3.70)</td><td>1.33</td><td>0.273</td><td>0.04</td><td>[0, 0.15]</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Past – Total episodic free recall</td><td>22</td><td>4.39<br>(2.85)</td><td>20</td><td>3.65<br>(2.81)</td><td>28</td><td>6.21<br>(1.55)</td><td>7.40</td><td><strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.18</td><td>[0.04,<br>0.33]</td><td>UHR &lt; CTL; SCZ &lt;<br>CTL</td></tr><tr><td>Future – Age of projection</td><td>22</td><td>25.3<br>(7.40)</td><td>20</td><td>28.4<br>(14.2)</td><td>28</td><td>29.8<br>(10.4)</td><td>1.09</td><td>0.342</td><td>0.03</td><td>[0, 0.13]</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Future – Total episodic free recall</td><td>22</td><td>2.39<br>(3.00)</td><td>20</td><td>1.35<br>(2.41)</td><td>28</td><td>4.38<br>(2.98)</td><td>7.12</td><td><strong>0.002</strong></td><td>0.18</td><td>[0.03,<br>0.33]</td><td>UHR &lt; CTL; SCZ &lt;<br>CTL</td></tr><tr><td colspan="13"><strong>Valence of self-representations (TSCS-2)</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="13" style="text-align: center;">F<br>(2,67)</td></tr><tr><td>Present – Total</td><td>22</td><td>65.4<br>(5.26)</td><td>20</td><td>65.6<br>(4.50)</td><td>28</td><td>63.3<br>(4.63)</td><td>1.72</td><td>0.187</td><td>0.05</td><td>[0, 0.16]</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Past – Total</td><td>22</td><td>62.9<br>(6.43)</td><td>20</td><td>63.1<br>(6.09)</td><td>28</td><td>60.9<br>(6.02)</td><td>0.98</td><td>0.379</td><td>0.03</td><td>[0, 0.13]</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Future – Total</td><td>22</td><td>65.3<br>(5.68)</td><td>20</td><td>66.9<br>(3.41)</td><td>28</td><td>65.4<br>(4.34)</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.455</td><td>0.02</td><td>[0, 0.12]</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td colspan="13"><strong>Prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter of Paris</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="13" style="text-align: center;">F<br>(2,67)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>22</td><td>11.6<br>(9.19)</td><td>20</td><td>10.9<br>(8.46)</td><td>28</td><td>18.0<br>(8.28)</td><td>5.17</td><td><strong>0.008</strong></td><td>0.13</td><td>[0.01,<br>0.28]</td><td>UHR &lt; CTL; SCZ &lt;<br>CTL</td></tr><tr><td>Cultural knowledge</td><td>22</td><td>1.50<br>(1.63)</td><td>20</td><td>0.71<br>(1.36)</td><td>28</td><td>3.12<br>(1.88)</td><td>11.47</td><td><strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.29</td><td>[0.10,<br>0.46]</td><td>UHR &lt; CTL; SCZ &lt;<br>CTL</td></tr><tr><td>Frequency of previous visits</td><td>22</td><td>2.69<br>(1.62)</td><td>20</td><td>3.00<br>(1.75)</td><td>28</td><td>3.04<br>(1.48)</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.772</td><td>0.01</td><td>[0, 0.08]</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Enjoyment of places</td><td>22</td><td>2.81<br>(1.42)</td><td>20</td><td>2.62<br>(1.41)</td><td>28</td><td>3.73<br>(1.15)</td><td>4.41</td><td><strong>0.017</strong></td><td>0.14</td><td>[0, 0.30]</td><td>SCZ &lt; CTL</td></tr><tr><td>Related autobiographical memories</td><td>22</td><td>2.19<br>(1.87)</td><td>20</td><td>2.44<br>(1.75)</td><td>28</td><td>3.08<br>(1.83)</td><td>1.34</td><td>0.270</td><td>0.05</td><td>[0, 0.17]</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Positive appreciation of the Latin Quarter</td><td>22</td><td>3.31<br>(0.87)</td><td>20</td><td>2.87<br>(1.46)</td><td>28</td><td>3.81<br>(1.02)</td><td>3.49</td><td><strong>0.038</strong></td><td>0.11</td><td>[0, 0.27]</td><td>SCZ &lt; CTL</td></tr><tr><td>Recency of the last visit</td><td>22</td><td>3.44<br>(1.46)</td><td>20</td><td>2.50<br>(1.63)</td><td>28</td><td>3.64<br>(1.29)</td><td>3.23</td><td><strong>0.047</strong></td><td>0.11</td><td>[0, 0.26]</td><td>SCZ &lt; CTL</td></tr><tr><td colspan="13"><strong>Video game experience</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="13" style="text-align: center;">F<br>(2,67)</td></tr><tr><td>Frequency of practice</td><td>22</td><td>5.48<br>(2.89)</td><td>20</td><td>4.06<br>(2.24)</td><td>28</td><td>4.29<br>(2.22)</td><td>1.91</td><td>0.158</td><td>0.06</td><td>[0, 0.20]</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

UHR: ultra-high risk individuals; SCZ: schizophrenia patients; CTL: healthy controls; N: sample size; n: number of non-missing values; M: mean; SD: standard deviation; F: ANOVA statistic; p: ANOVA p-value; η²ₚ: ANOVA partial eta squared; 95 % CI: 95 % confidence interval for η²ₚ. In bold: statistically significant results.

WAIS: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; BPRS: Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale – Expanded; PANSS: Positive And Negative Symptoms Scale; MADRS: Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale; SOFAS: Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale; NSSE: Neurological Soft Signs Examination; TEMPau: evocation of episodic autobiographical events test; TSCS-2: Tennessee Self-Concept Scale – Second Edition.

differences in phenomenological ratings across conditions, contrary to the study of Penaud et al. (2022). The improved integration of episodic elements under self-perspective supports models proposing that self-referential processing strengthens episodic binding (Sui & Humphreys, 2015). The enhanced integration, in turn, improves memory coherence and leads to more vivid and accurate recollections (Bergouignan et al., 2014; Bréchet et al., 2019; Penaud et al., 2022; Serino et al., 2023). This effect likely involves hippocampal mechanisms central to episodic binding (Diana et al., 2007; Simons et al., 2022; Yonelinas et al., 2019), which are less active when recalling events initially encoded out-of-body (Bergouignan et al., 2014), i.e. from a perspective other than one's own. Overall, the results confirm that encoding events from one's own perspective promotes more coherent and detailed episodic recollection in healthy individuals.

## 4.2. The impact of psychosis on the role of the Self in naturalistic episodic memory

Compared to healthy individuals, both UHR individuals and patients with SCZ exhibited pervasive EM deficits for specific events, including impairments in factual content and details and, most notably, memory binding. The binding deficit persisted regardless of the perspective from which events were experienced. This finding is consistent with prior work highlighting difficulties in integrating event features into a coherent memory trace as a core cognitive impairment in schizophrenia spectrum (Haut et al., 2015; Le Roy, 2011; Ragland et al., 2012; Waters et al., 2004), and extends them to ecologically valid contexts. The lack of significant differences between UHR and SCZ groups further highlights that these EM impairments emerge in the prodromal phase of psychosis (de Paula et al., 2015; Fusar-Poli et al., 2012; Valli et al., 2012).

However, while objective EM measures showed pervasive deficits, the subjective sense of remembering remained relatively preserved. This suggests that although the actual content of their memories was
<table><caption>**Table 2**
Navigation duration, sense of presence, and episodic memory free recall of specific events encountered in the virtual Latin Quarter, by Group and Perspective.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="2">UHR (N = 22)</th><th colspan="2">SCZ (N = 20)</th><th colspan="2">CTL (N = 28)</th><th colspan="10">Two-way mixed ANCOVA</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2">Self<br>M (SD)</th><th rowspan="2">Other<br>M (SD)</th><th rowspan="2">Self<br>M (SD)</th><th rowspan="2">Other<br>M (SD)</th><th rowspan="2">Self<br>M (SD)</th><th rowspan="2">Other<br>M (SD)</th><th colspan="4">Interaction</th><th colspan="4">Group</th><th colspan="4">Perspective</th></tr><tr><th>F</th><th>p</th><th>η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup></th><th>95% CI</th><th>F</th><th>p</th><th>η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup></th><th>95% CI</th><th>F</th><th>p</th><th>η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup></th><th>95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Navigation duration and Sense of presence</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="4"><strong>F</strong><br>(2,67)</td><td colspan="4"><strong>F</strong><br>(2,65)</td><td colspan="4"><strong>F</strong><br>(1,67)</td></tr><tr><td>Navigation duration (s)</td><td>544 (84.2)</td><td>617 (125)</td><td>608 (107)</td><td>629 (93.4)</td><td>557 (73.8)</td><td>614 (108)</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.02</td><td>[0, 0.10]</td><td>3.01</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.09</td><td>[0, 0.22]</td><td>6.69</td><td><strong>0.01</strong><sup>O</sup></td><td>0.09</td><td>[0, 0.24]</td></tr><tr><td>Sense of presence – Total (/84)</td><td>31.5 (14.5)</td><td>30.6 (14.2)</td><td>30.4 (14.1)</td><td>30.3 (13.4)</td><td>29.5 (13.2)</td><td>31.0 (13.5)</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.01</td><td>[0, 0.08]</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.98</td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0]</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.06]</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Free recall of specific encountered events</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="4"><strong>F</strong><br>(2,66)</td><td colspan="4"><strong>F</strong><br>(2,64)</td><td colspan="4"><strong>F</strong><br>(1,66)</td></tr><tr><td>Number of events recalled (/6)</td><td>4.50 (0.96)</td><td>4.59 (0.96)</td><td>4.15 (1.42)</td><td>4.25 (1.16)</td><td>5.61 (0.63)</td><td>5.39 (0.74)</td><td>21.01</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong><sup>A,<br>B,b</sup></td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.06]</td><td>22.45</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.41</td><td>[0.22, 0.55]</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.830</td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.06]</td></tr><tr><td>What (/12)</td><td>7.59 (2.13)</td><td>6.95 (2.44)</td><td>6.80 (3.11)</td><td>6.30 (2.18)</td><td>9.82 (1.59)</td><td>8.14 (2.41)</td><td>56.73</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong><sup>A,<br>B</sup></td><td>0.14</td><td>[0.02, 0.3]</td><td>19.75</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.38</td><td>[0.19, 0.53]</td><td>10.58</td><td>&lt; <strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0]</td></tr><tr><td>Details (/12)</td><td>2.41 (2.02)</td><td>1.55 (1.97)</td><td>2.10 (1.89)</td><td>1.77 (2.25)</td><td>6.39 (2.18)</td><td>3.21 (2.22)</td><td>10.05</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong><sup>A,<br>B,X</sup></td><td>0.32</td><td>[0.15, 0.48]</td><td>25.88</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.45</td><td>[0.26, 0.58]</td><td>31.06</td><td>&lt; <strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.07]</td></tr><tr><td>What + Details (/24)</td><td>10.0 (3.87)</td><td>8.50 (3.97)</td><td>8.90 (4.27)</td><td>8.07 (3.82)</td><td>16.2 (3.18)</td><td>11.4 (4.13)</td><td>41.15</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong><sup>A,<br>B,X</sup></td><td>0.29</td><td>[0.12, 0.45]</td><td>29.99</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.48</td><td>[0.3, 0.61]</td><td>26.89</td><td>&lt; <strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.06]</td></tr><tr><td>Where – Allocentric (/6)</td><td>1.55 (1.37)</td><td>1.95 (1.59)</td><td>1.00 (0.92)</td><td>1.10 (1.17)</td><td>2.93 (1.39)</td><td>2.50 (1.43)</td><td>13.17</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong><sup>A,<br>B</sup></td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.03]</td><td>18.44</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.37</td><td>[0.18, 0.51]</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.940</td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.05]</td></tr><tr><td>Where – Egocentric (/6)</td><td>1.45 (1.57)</td><td>1.59 (1.37)</td><td>0.85 (1.18)</td><td>0.50 (1.00)</td><td>4.25 (1.43)</td><td>3.61 (1.87)</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.620</td><td>0.04</td><td>[0, 0.16]</td><td>54.56</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong><sup>U,<br>S</sup></td><td>0.63</td><td>[0.48, 0.73]</td><td>2.39</td><td>0.130</td><td>0.01</td><td>[0, 0.1]</td></tr><tr><td>Where – Total (/12)</td><td>3.00 (2.45)</td><td>3.55 (2.65)</td><td>1.85 (1.53)</td><td>1.60 (1.47)</td><td>7.18 (2.47)</td><td>6.11 (2.66)</td><td>3.61</td><td>0.060</td><td>0.02</td><td>[0, 0.12]</td><td>51.58</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong><sup>U,<br>S</sup></td><td>0.62</td><td>[0.46, 0.72]</td><td>1.18</td><td>0.280</td><td>0.01</td><td>[0, 0.09]</td></tr><tr><td>When – Position (/6)</td><td>2.68 (1.59)</td><td>2.64 (1.65)</td><td>2.30 (1.56)</td><td>2.40 (1.39)</td><td>3.93 (1.72)</td><td>3.18 (1.96)</td><td>2.95</td><td>0.090</td><td>0.03</td><td>[0, 0.14]</td><td>4.89</td><td><strong>0.010</strong></td><td>0.13</td><td>[0.01, 0.28]</td><td>1.78</td><td>0.190</td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.05]</td></tr><tr><td>When – Sequence (/6)</td><td>3.23 (1.19)</td><td>3.77 (1.41)</td><td>3.05 (1.23)</td><td>3.25 (0.91)</td><td>4.79 (1.26)</td><td>4.32 (1.33)</td><td>2.99</td><td>0.090</td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.06]</td><td>13.03</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong><sup>U,<br>S</sup></td><td>0.29</td><td>[0.11, 0.44]</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.790</td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.08]</td></tr><tr><td>When – Total (/12)</td><td>5.91 (2.45)</td><td>6.41 (2.54)</td><td>5.35 (2.23)</td><td>5.65 (2.01)</td><td>8.71 (2.69)</td><td>7.50 (2.95)</td><td>5.11</td><td><strong>0.030</strong><sup>A,<br>B</sup></td><td>0.01</td><td>[0, 0.11]</td><td>9.60</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.23</td><td>[0.06, 0.39]</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.400</td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.03]</td></tr><tr><td>Binding – Event mean (/8)</td><td>4.13 (0.96)</td><td>3.98 (0.98)</td><td>3.88 (0.85)</td><td>3.54 (0.83)</td><td>5.71 (0.77)</td><td>4.60 (0.97)</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.370</td><td>0.25</td><td>[0.09, 0.42]</td><td>29.69</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong><sup>U,<br>S</sup></td><td>0.48</td><td>[0.3, 0.61]</td><td>22.48</td><td>&lt; <strong>0.001</strong><sup>O</sup></td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0]</td></tr><tr><td>Binding – Proportion (%)</td><td>39.4 (14.3)</td><td>38.4 (14.2)</td><td>33.5 (13.9)</td><td>31.9 (12.8)</td><td>66.9 (13.1)</td><td>52.0 (14.3)</td><td>17.91</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong><sup>A,<br>B,a,b,X</sup></td><td>0.20</td><td>[0.06, 0.36]</td><td>44.27</td><td>&lt;<br><strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.58</td><td>[0.42, 0.69]</td><td>16.53</td><td>&lt; <strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0]</td></tr><tr><td>Phenomenology – Sense of</td><td>3.09 (1.23)</td><td>2.82 (1.26)</td><td>2.30 (1.38)</td><td>2.15 (1.39)</td><td>2.75 (1.38)</td><td>3.00 (1.22)</td><td>7.38</td><td><strong>0.010</strong></td><td>0.00</td><td>[0, 0.05]</td><td>2.61</td><td>0.080</td><td>0.08</td><td>[0, 0.21]</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.840</td><td>0.01</td><td>[0, 0.1]</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>Table 2 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="2">UHR (N = 22)</th><th colspan="2">SCZ (N = 20)</th><th colspan="2">CTL (N = 28)</th><th colspan="4">Two-way mixed ANCOVA</th><th colspan="4">Perspective</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2">Self</th><th rowspan="2">Other</th><th rowspan="2">Self</th><th rowspan="2">Other</th><th rowspan="2">Self</th><th rowspan="2">Other</th><th colspan="2">Interaction</th><th colspan="2">Group</th><th colspan="2">F</th><th colspan="2">p</th><th colspan="2">F</th></tr><tr><th>F</th><th>p</th><th>η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup></th><th>95 % CI</th><th>F</th><th>p</th><th>η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup></th><th>95 % CI</th><th>F</th><th>p</th><th>η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup></th><th>95 % CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>remembering (/5)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Phenomenology - Self-relevance (/5)</td><td>1.44 (1.37)</td><td>1.17 (1.16)</td><td>1.42 (1.43)</td><td>1.41 (1.41)</td><td>1.21 (1.01)</td><td>1.21 (0.95)</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.370</td><td>0.02</td><td>[0, 0.13]</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.830</td><td>0.01</td><td>[0, 0.06]</td><td>1.25</td><td>0.270</td><td>0.02</td><td>[0, 0.12]</td></tr><tr><td>Phenomenology - Valence (/5)</td><td>2.06 (0.46)</td><td>2.15 (0.52)</td><td>2.17 (0.46)</td><td>1.89 (0.70)</td><td>2.14 (0.40)</td><td>2.09 (0.45)</td><td>1.24</td><td>0.270</td><td>0.01</td><td>[0, 0.11]</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.650</td><td>0.01</td><td>[0, 0.09]</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.370</td><td>0.11</td><td>[0.01, 0.27]</td></tr></tbody></table>

All analyses controlled for participants' prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter of Paris, and years of education. Navigation duration per condition was included as an additional covariate in the analysis of free recall scores.

UHR: ultra-high risk individuals; SCZ: schizophrenia patients; CTL: healthy controls; N: sample size (no missing values); M: mean; SD: standard deviation. In bold: statistically significant results.

Code for significant post-hoc contrasts corrected with the Bonferroni method (detailed post-hoc statistics in Supplementary Table S1):

Interaction post-hoc: A: Self: CTL > UHR; B: Self: CTL > SCZ; a: Other: CTL > UHR; b: Other: CTL > SCZ; x: CTL: Other < Self.

Group effect post-hoc: U: CTL > UHR; S: CTL > SCZ; P: UHR > SCZ.

Perspective effect post-hoc: O: Other < Self.

fragmented and poor, UHR individuals and patients with SCZ may have felt as if they re-experienced the recalled events. This dissociation between subjective feeling and objective performance is a likely consequence of the ipseity-disturbance model (Sass & Parnas, 2003). Hyper-reflexivity may amplify the internal salience of imagined or reconstructed experiences, giving rise to a strong sense of remembering despite degraded memory content; diminished self-presence may make it difficult to reliably determine whether a memory originated from external perception or from internal imagination. Thus, the weakened first-person experience can blur the boundary between self-generated internal thought and external reality. This core confusion manifests as the meta-memory and source monitoring deficits known to be prevalent in psychosis (Damiani et al., 2022; Kwok et al., 2021; Moritz et al., 2003; Yeh et al., 2024). Impairments in source monitoring logically contribute to a misattribution bias (Brébion et al., 2002) and can increase vulnerability to false memories (Moritz et al., 2004). More broadly, this entire cascade, from weakened ipseity to faulty source monitoring, exemplifies the self-reality boundary confusion described in the SCZ spectrum (Parnas et al., 2005). Therefore, EM deficits in psychosis appear to be linked not merely to cognitive impairment, but more fundamentally to core alterations in self-experience.

The relationship between EM deficits and self-disorders is further highlighted by our findings on the influence of perspective on EM encoding in the UHR and SCZ groups. Patients' EM performance remained consistently poor across both self- and other-perspective conditions, with neither clinical group exhibiting the self-perspective benefit on EM observed in CTL. However, allocentric spatial memory and temporal memory were significantly impaired in the UHR and SCZ groups compared to CTL only when events were encoded from a self-perspective, but not from an other-perspective. This finding suggests a specific difficulty in both constructing environment-centred spatial representations and mentally situating events within a temporal framework when anchored to one's own viewpoint. This observation is consistent with established findings of altered allocentric referencing and egocentric-allocentric switching in SCZ (Landgraf et al., 2010), as well as the link between altered time processing and minimal Self disorders (Martin et al., 2014). Consequently, our findings may reflect hippocampal dysfunction, as both allocentric spatial processing and temporal sequencing are core functions of the hippocampus and are critical for contextualising episodic content (Burgess et al., 2002; Eichenbaum, 2013). The absence of a self-reference effect in UHR and SCZ aligns with behavioural (Compère et al., 2016; Harvey et al., 2011; Pauly et al., 2011) and neural (Jia et al., 2019; Jimenez et al., 2018; Park et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2014) evidence of aberrant self-processing in psychosis. In line with our initial hypothesis, the lack of benefit from a self-perspective highlights a failure to use the Self as a stable spatio-temporal anchor, resulting in fragmented memory traces that lack the cohesiveness, self-referential structure, and autonoetic richness that define real-life episodic memories. Hyper-reflexivity can induce a detached, objectified stance that neutralises the benefits of an immersive first-person perspective, while diminished self-presence undermines the embodied, egocentric reference frame required to anchor an experience in space and time. Therefore, our findings suggest that the EM deficits in the schizophrenia spectrum are fundamentally tied to a disturbed ipseity, where the disrupted minimal Self fails to serve as the cohesive, first-person anchor essential for forming rich, contextualised episodic memories.

### 4.3. The mechanisms disrupting the role of the Self in naturalistic episodic memory in psychosis

While multiple factors appear to contribute to the failure in benefiting from a self-perspective in UHR and SCZ groups, we propose an integrated account in which a primary disruption of the minimal Self, as conceptualised by the ipseity-disturbance model (Sass & Parnas, 2003), underlies the core deficit, which in turn interacts with and
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Significant interactions between *Group* and *Perspective* on factual components of episodic memory and memory binding.
UHR: ultra-high risk individuals; SCZ: schizophrenia patients; CTL: healthy controls. \*: p < .05; \***: p ≤ .001.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Significant partial correlations between free recall scores and prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter, controlling for years of education and adjusted for multiple comparisons.</figcaption></figure>

UHR: ultra-high risk individuals; SCZ: schizophrenia patients; EM: episodic memory.

amplifies other cognitive impairments, shaping how events are encoded, contextualised, and remembered.

### 4.3.1. Deficits in episodic mental time travel

Correlations between memory binding for events encoded from the self-perspective and EAM, in UHR and SCZ groups, suggest that deficits in forming new self-related episodic memories may reflect difficulties in mentally travelling through one's subjective time (Tulving, 1985). Both UHR and SCZ groups scored significantly lower than healthy individuals on the TEMPau across past, present and future dimensions, confirming widespread impairments in recalling past and envisioning future

episodic autobiographical events in the schizophrenia spectrum (Berna et al., 2016; D'Argembeau et al., 2008). These deficits may lead to fragmented autobiographical memories, hindering the integration of past experiences with current self-perceptions and future goals, ultimately disrupting the formation of a coherent narrative identity and self-continuity over time (Conway, 2005; Prebble et al., 2013; Raffard et al., 2010). From the perspective of the ipseity-disturbance model, the difficulty in subjective time travel can be seen as arising from a diminished capacity for self-affection and first-person anchoring. A weakened minimal Self destabilises the first-person perspective required to mentally project oneself across time through autonoetic consciousness, thereby impairing episodic integration and disrupting self-continuity in psychosis.

### 4.3.2. Altered embodiment and motor integration

Deficits in the sequential organisation of events encoded from the self-perspective were associated with greater neurological soft signs severity, specifically motor integration impairments, in the UHR and SCZ groups. Since self-perspective memory relies on embodied processing, which integrates multisensory exteroceptive, interoceptive, and motor signals (Blanke, 2012), impairments in motor integration may particularly disrupt the encoding of self-related events. This aligns directly with the ipseity-disturbance model's emphasis on diminished self-affection, which fundamentally describes a weakened sense of being an embodied agent. When the pre-reflective experience of inhabiting and controlling one's body is compromised, it becomes more difficult to ground memory in an embodied self-perspective. This is consistent with recent findings linking altered embodied minimal Self in early psychosis to impaired EM of naturalistic events (Yeh et al., 2024). These findings indicate that disruptions in patients' multisensory integration processes may compromise their encoding of self-located experiences, weakening episodic cohesion.

### 4.3.3. Environmental familiarity and virtual presence

Prior familiarity with the Latin Quarter was associated with better EM performance in the UHR and SCZ groups. Correlations between EM performance across both self- and other-perspective conditions, and a positive appreciation of the Latin Quarter, suggest that affective and motivational environmental factors modulate EM encoding. These findings are consistent with research demonstrating enhanced EM and EAM for items associated with positive contexts (D'Argembeau & Van der Linden, 2008; Sun et al., 2018). Familiar environments likely provide a structured spatial framework that facilitates event encoding and retrieval by anchoring episodic content within well-established spatial schemas (Meneghetti et al., 2014; Robin & Moscovitch, 2014). This aligns with findings from spatial memory research showing that prior knowledge of an environment improves navigation and supports the integration of spatial and episodic elements into coherent
representations (Frankenstein et al., 2009; Shelton & Gabrieli, 2002).

The sense of presence also emerged as a key correlate of naturalistic EM. Although it did not differ across groups and perspective conditions, it was specifically associated with EM performance in the self- but not the other-perspective condition. In CTL, stronger presence was associated with enhanced factual content for events encoded from the self-perspective. This finding aligns with research indicating that a strong feeling of ‘being there’ improves memory by increasing attentional engagement during encoding (Makowski et al., 2017; Serino et al., 2023). In the UHR and SCZ groups, stronger virtual presence was associated with improved memory of the sequential organisation of events and binding of episodic features, suggesting that presence may facilitate naturalistic EM encoding. Importantly, presence is increasingly understood not just as a response to immersive technology, but as a psychological state that arises when the virtual environment aligns with the user’s goals, expectations, and sense-making processes (Triberti et al., 2025). From this perspective, the beneficial effects of presence on EM may stem from the brain’s ability to embed experiences into a coherent and meaningful context, as corroborated by the observed correlation between presence and environmental familiarity. Within the ipseity-disturbance framework, these effects may reflect the role of presence in compensating for a weakened embodied Self. The sense of presence induced by VR may help patients temporarily restore a sense of self-affection, increasing their ability to feel engaged as an embodied first-person subject of experience. This restored stable first-person perspective would in turn support more effective memory encoding in clinical populations.

### 4.3.4. Executive functions

Finally, our findings highlighted the central role of executive functions in shaping EM and EAM processes (Guler & Mackovichova, 2019; Meléndez et al., 2019; Piolino et al., 2010), and in the self-reference effect (Caudek, 2014). Executive dysfunction is prominent in the schizophrenia spectrum (de Paula et al., 2015; Fioravanti et al., 2012) and has been shown to contribute to EAM impairments in SCZ (Danion et al., 2005; Kwok et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2019). In the current study, better executive functioning was associated with improved recall of the sequential organisation of events encoded from the self-perspective in the UHR and SCZ groups. These results highlight the importance of executive functions in maintaining temporal coherence in EM. However, under the ipseity-disturbance model, executive dysfunction is best understood not as a primary cause, but as an interacting and often downstream factor. For instance, hyper-reflexivity imposes excessive self-monitoring demands that can overload executive resources. Conversely, when self-affection is weakened, individuals may rely more heavily on effortful, top-down executive control to manage tasks that would otherwise be supported by a stable, pre-reflective sense of minimal Self, thus making performance more vulnerable to executive deficits.

### 4.4. Strengths, implications, and limitations

The present study provided a better understanding of the interplay between self-perspective, environmental context, and EM formation in UHR individuals and patients with SCZ. Notably, environmental familiarity and sense of presence mitigated EM deficits, highlighting the role of environmental context in actively modulating human behaviour and cognition (Gifford, 2007). By leveraging VR, this study captured the dynamic interactions between Self, space, and memory as they unfold in lifelike situations. Importantly, this study extends spatial memory research, which has traditionally focused primarily on the spatial dimension (Bohbot et al., 1998; Janssen et al., 2015; Pazzaglia et al., 2007), by integrating the additional roles of events, their temporal context, and phenomenological qualities in EM formation. It highlights how timing, phenomenology, and self-referencing dynamically interact with spatial information to shape real-world episodic recollection.

The clinical implications of this study are substantial. Difficulties integrating self-referential information into EM and EAM in real-life may contribute to identity fragmentation and impaired self-continuity. Regular assessments of patients’ ability to recall self-experienced events may provide valuable insights into cognitive decline and symptom severity, and inform treatment. Immersive VR-based interventions (Bogie et al., 2024; Calzavara-Pinton et al., 2024) and cognitive training programs (Frawley et al., 2022; La Paglia et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2022) hold considerable promise for both early diagnosis and remediation in psychosis. By enhancing EM, EAM, and self-referential processing, such programs may help strengthening patients’ sense of self-continuity, daily functioning, and overall quality of life. Specifically, VR environments tailored to include familiar, personally meaningful, and positively appraised places or contexts could enhance sense of presence, thereby providing cognitive scaffolding that supports more effective EM encoding in UHR and SCZ populations.

Despite its strengths, the study has limitations. Future studies would benefit from systematically characterising and controlling event-level features, such as valence or emotional intensity, to further refine our understanding of how these factors interact with self-perspective during EM encoding (e.g., Lenormand et al., 2024). More immersive VR paradigms, incorporating embodied interactions, could provide deeper insights into the respective and joint contributions of several facets of the Self to naturalistic EM in clinical populations (e.g., Yeh et al., 2024). The development of embodiment techniques in virtual avatars enables exploring how the integration of multimodal bodily signals within the peripersonal space shapes EM formation (Bréchet et al., 2019; Iriye & Ehrsson, 2022; Maselli & Slater, 2013; Penaud et al., 2023).

## 5. Conclusion

The study explores the critical role of self-perspective and environmental context in episodic memory formation. Using a naturalistic virtual environment, we provide an ecologically valid framework for examining self-referential memory processes in both healthy individuals and those with self-disorders. The lack of a self-perspective benefit in EM for patients in the schizophrenia spectrum may reflect a core ipseity disturbance, which results in fragmented and poorly contextualised memory traces. Our findings also suggest that environmental familiarity and sense of presence can mitigate memory deficits, demonstrating the influence of environmental contexts on cognitive functioning. This offers new possibilities for early diagnosis and intervention, highlighting the potential of environmental and VR-based approaches to enhance autonomy and well-being in psychotic disorders.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Delphine Yeh:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Formal analysis. **Célia Jantac:** Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation. **Sylvain Penaud:** Writing – review & editing. **Maxine Dos Santos:** Investigation, Data curation. **Gilles Martinez:** Investigation, Data curation. **Julie Bourgin-Duchesnay:** Investigation, Data curation. **Valeria Lucarini:** Investigation, Data curation. **Eric Orriols:** Software. **Alain Berthoz:** Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Marie-Odile Krebs:** Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition. **Pascale Piolino:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

### Funding

DY has received a PhD scholarship from the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research. The creation of virtual environment was supported by the DGCIS (French General Directorate for
Competitiveness, Industry, and Services) [grant to AB & PP: SCORE project]. The study was supported by the French Health Ministry for the START biomedical research study [grant to MOK: PHRC AOM 13–681]. This study was also supported by the French government's "Investissements d'Avenir" PsyCARE [grant to MOK: ANR-18-RHUS-0014].

## Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to sincerely thank the participants who volunteered for the study and staff from the GHU Paris Psychiatry and Neuroscience and IPNP lab involved in the START study for the recruitment and/or clinical data management: Narjes Bendjemaa, Meryem Benlaifa, Emilie Bonnard, Mélanie Chayet, Charlotte Danset-Alexandre, Faustine Denis, Marie de Gasquet, Faustine Denis, Anton Iftimici, Mathilde Kazes, Florian Lejuste, Albane Mansoux, Valentine Morin, Lia Pedron, Lena Petersen, Romane Savatte, Linda Scorielis.

## Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102712.

## References

Abichou, K., La Corte, V., Hubert, N., Orriels, E., Gaston-Bellegarde, A., Nicolas, S., & Piolino, P. (2019). Young and older adults benefit from sleep, but not from active wakefulness for memory consolidation of what-where-when naturalistic events. *Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 11*. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagi.2019.00058

Abram, M., Picard, L., Navarro, B., & Piolino, P. (2014). Mechanisms of remembering the past and imagining the future – new data from autobiographical memory tasks in a lifespan approach. *Consciousness and Cognition, 29*, 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.07.011

Addis, D. R., Wong, A. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2007). Remembering the past and imagining the future: Common and distinct neural substrates during event construction and elaboration. *Neuropsychologia, 45*(7), 1363–1377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.10.016

Bayard, S., Clarisse, M., Carlos, C., Cornu, C., Moulin, A., & stéphane, R. (2023). French adult normative data for a standard executive neuropsychological test battery. *Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology*. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acad062

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series B: Statistical Methodology*, 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

Bergouignan, L., Nyberg, L., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2014). Out-of-Body-Induced hippocampal amnesia. *PNAS*, *111*(12), 4421–4426. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1318801111

Berna, F., Göritz, A. S., Schröder, J., Martin, B., Cermolacce, M., Allé, M. C., Danion, J.-M., Cuervo-Lombard, C. V., & Moritz, S. (2016). Self-disorders in individuals with attenuated psychotic symptoms: Contribution of a dysfunction of autobiographical memory. *Psychiatry Research, 239*, 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.03.029

Berna, F., Potheegadoo, J., Aouadi, I., Ricarte, J. J., Allé, M. C., Coutelle, R., Boyer, L., Cuervo-Lombard, C. V., & Danion, J.-M. (2016). A meta-analysis of autobiographical memory studies in schizophrenia spectrum disorder. *Schizophrenia Bulletin, 42*(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbv099

Berthoz, A. (2000). *The brain's sense of movement*. Harvard University Press. S. M. Kosslyn, Ed.; G. Weiss, Trans.; pp. xi, 337.

Blanke, O. (2012). Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13*(8), 556–571. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3292

Blanke, O., & Metzinger, T. (2009). Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13*(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.003

Bogie, B. J. M., Noël, C., Gu, F., Nadeau, S., Shvetz, C., Khan, H., Rivard, M.-C., Bouchard, S., Lepage, M., & Guimond, S. (2024). Using virtual reality to improve verbal episodic memory in schizophrenia: A proof-of-concept trial. *Schizophrenia Research: Cognition, 36*, Article 100305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scos.2024.100305

Bohbot, V. D., Kalina, M., Stepankova, K., Spackova, N., Petrides, M., & Nadel, L. (1998). Spatial memory deficits in patients with lesions to the right Hippocampus and to the right parahippocampal cortex. *Neuropsychologia, 36*(11), 1217–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00161-9

Brébion, G., Gorman, J. M., Amador, X., Malaspina, D., & Sharif, Z. (2002). Source monitoring impairments in schizophrenia: Characterisation and associations with positive and negative symptomatology. *Psychiatry Research, 112*(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1781(02)00187-7

Bréchet, L., Mange, R., Herbelin, B., Theillaud, Q., Gauthier, B., Serino, A., & Blanke, O. (2019). First-person view of one's body in immersive virtual reality: Influence on episodic memory. *PLOS One, 14*(3), Article e0197763. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197763

Buckner, R. L., & Carroll, D. C. (2007). Self-projection and the brain. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11*(2), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.004

Burgess, N., Maguire, E. A., & O'Keefe, J. (2002). The human Hippocampus and spatial and episodic memory. *Neuron, 35*(4), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00830-9

Byrne, P., Becker, S., & Burgess, N. (2007). Remembering the past and imagining the future: A neural model of spatial memory and imagery. *Psychological Review, 114*(2), 340–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.340

Calzavara-Pinton, I., Nibbio, G., Barlati, S., Bertoni, L., Necchini, N., Zardini, D., Baglioni, A., Paolini, S., Poddighe, L., Bulgari, V., Lisoni, J., Deste, G., & Vita, A. (2024). Treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: New evidence, challenges, and future perspectives. *Brain Sciences, 14*(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14080791

Cardebat, D., Doyon, B., Puel, M., Goulet, P., & Joanette, Y. (1990). Formal and semantic lexical evocation in normal subjects. Performance and dynamics of production as a function of sex, age and educational level. *Acta Neurologica Belgica, 90*(4), 207–217.

Caudek, C. (2014). Individual differences in cognitive control on self-referenced and other-referenced memory. *Consciousness and Cognition, 30*, 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.08.017

Christoff, K., Cosmelli, D., Legrand, D., & Thompson, E. (2011). Specifying the self for cognitive neuroscience. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15*(3), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.001

Compère, L., Mam-Lam-Fook, C., Amado, I., Nys, M., Lalanne, J., Grillon, M.-L., Bendjemaa, N., Krebs, M.-O., & Piolino, P. (2016). Self-reference recollection effect and its relation to theory of mind: An investigation in healthy controls and schizophrenia. *Consciousness and Cognition, 42*, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.03.004

Conway, M. A. (2005). Memory and the self. *Journal of Memory and Language, 53*(4), 594–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.08.005

Conway, M. A., & Dewhurst, S. A. (1995). The self and recollective experience. *Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9*(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/apc.2350090102

Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. *Psychological Review, 107*(2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261

Cowan, H. R., McAdams, D. P., Ouellet, L., Jones, C. M., & Mittal, V. A. (2024). Self-concept and narrative identity in youth at clinical high risk for psychosis. *Schizophrenia Bulletin, 50*(4), 848–859. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbad142

Damiani, S., Donadeo, A., Bassetti, N., Salazar-de-Pablo, G., Guiot, C., Politi, P., & Fusar-Poli, P. (2022). Understanding source monitoring subtypes and their relation to psychosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. *Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 76*(5), 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13338

Danion, J.-M., Cuervo, C., Piolino, P., Huron, C., Riutort, M., Peretti, C. S., & Eustache, F. (2005). Conscious recollection in autobiographical memory: An investigation in schizophrenia. *Consciousness and Cognition, 14*(3), 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.01.005

Danion, J.-M., Huron, C., Vidailhet, P., & Berna, F. (2007). Functional mechanisms of episodic memory impairment in schizophrenia. *Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie, 52*(11), 693–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370705201103

D'Argembeau, A., stéphane, R., & Van der Linden, M. (2008). Remembering the past and imagining the future in schizophrenia. *Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117*, 247–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.117.1.247

D'Argembeau, A., & Van der Linden, M. (2008). Remembering pride and shame: Self-enhancement and the phenomenology of autobiographical memory. *Memory, 16*, 538–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802010463

de Paula, A. L. D., Hallak, J. E. C., Maia-de-Oliveira, J. P., Bressan, R. A., & Machado-de-Sousa, J. P. (2015). Cognition in at-risk mental states for psychosis. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 57*, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nebiorev.2015.09.006

Delis, D. C., Freeland, J., Kramer, J. H., & Kaplan, E. (1988). Integrating clinical assessment with cognitive neuroscience: Construct validation of the California verbal learning test. *Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56*(1), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.1.123

Diana, R. A., Yonelinas, A. P., & Ranganath, C. (2007). Imaging recollection and familiarity in the medial temporal lobe: A three-component model. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11*(9), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.001

Dingemans, P. M. A. J., Linszen, D. H., Lenior, M. E., & Smeets, R. M. W. (1995). Component structure of the expanded Brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS-E). *Psychopharmacology, 122*(3), 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02246547

Duval, C., Eustache, F., & Piolino, P. (2007). Self Multidimensionnel, Mémoire Autobiographie et Vieillissement. *Psychologie et Neuropsychologie du Vieillissement, 53*(3), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1684/pnv.2007.0100

Eichenbaum, H. (2013). Memory on time. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17*(2), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.12.007

Fan, C. L., Sokolowski, H. M., Rosenbaum, R. S., & Levine, B. (2023). What about “space” is important for episodic memory? *Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 14*(3), Article e1645. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1645
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. *Behavior Research Methods, 39*(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Fioravanti, M., Bianchi, V., & Cinti, M. E. (2012). Cognitive deficits in schizophrenia: An updated meta-analysis of the scientific evidence. *BMC Psychiatry*, **12**(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-12-64

Fitts, W. H., & Warren, W. L. (1996). *Tennessee self-concept scale: TSCS-2 manual*. Western Psychological Services.

Frankenstein, J., Meilinger, T., Mohler, B. J., & Bulthoff, H. H. (2009). Spatial memory for highly familiar environments. *Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society*, **31**(31). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2zf3z19h.

Frawley, E., Cowman, M., Cella, M., Cohen, D., Ryan, E., Hallahan, B., Bowie, C., McDonald, C., Fowler, D., Wykes, T., & Donohoe, G. (2022). Cognitive remediation and social recovery in early psychosis (CRESt-R): Protocol for a pilot randomised controlled study. *Pilot and Feasibility Studies*, **8**(1), 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-022-01064-6

Fusar-Poli, P., Deste, G., Smieskova, R., Barlati, S., Yung, A. R., Howes, O., Stieglitz, R.-D., Vita, A., McGuire, P., & Borgwardt, S. (2012). Cognitive functioning in prodromal psychosis: A meta-analysis. *Archives of General Psychiatry*, **69**(6), 562-571. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.1592

Gale, N., Golledge, R. G., Halperin, W. C., & Couclelis, H. (1990). Exploring spatial familiarity. *The Professional Geographer*, **42**(3), 299-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1990.00299.x

Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, **4**(1), 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01417-5

Gifford, R. (2007). *Environmental Psychology: Principles and practice* (4th ed.). Optimal Books.

Greenland-White, S. E., Ragland, J. D., Niendam, T. A., Ferrer, E., & Carter, C. S. (2017). Episodic memory functions in first episode psychosis and clinical high risk individuals. *Schizophrenia Research*, **188**, 151-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2017.01.035

Guler, O. E., & Mackovichova, S. (2019). The role of executive function in autobiographical memory retrieval: Does the type of cue word matter? *Memory*, **27**(4), 423-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1513040

Harvey, P.-O., Lee, J., Horan, W. P., Ochsner, K., & Green, M. F. (2011). Do patients with schizophrenia benefit from a self-referential memory bias? *Schizophrenia Research*, **127**(1-3), 171-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2010.11.011

Haut, K. M., van Erp, T. G. M., Knowlton, B., Bearden, C. E., Subotnik, K., Ventura, J., Nuechterlein, K. H., & Cannon, T. D. (2015). Contributions of feature binding during encoding and functional connectivity of the medial temporal lobe structures to episodic memory deficits across the prodromal and first-episode phases of schizophrenia. *Clinical Psychological Science*, **3**(2), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614533949

Henriksen, M. G., Raballo, A., & Nordgaard, J. (2021). Self-disorders and psychopathology: A systematic review. *The Lancet Psychiatry*, **8**(11), 1001-1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00097-3

Iriye, H., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2022). Perceptual illusion of body-ownership within an immersive realistic environment enhances memory accuracy and Re-experiencing. *iScience*, **25**(1), Article 103584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103584

Iriye, H., & St Jacques, P. L. (2021). Memories for third-person experiences in immersive virtual reality. *Scientific Reports*, **11**(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84047-6. Article 1.

Janssen, S. M. J., Kristo, G., Rouw, R., & Murre, J. M. J. (2015). The relation between verbal and visuospatial memory and autobiographical memory. *Consciousness and Cognition*, **31**, 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.10.001

Jebara, N., Orriols, E., Zaoui, M., Berthoz, A., & Piolino, P. (2014). Effects of enactment in episodic memory: A pilot virtual reality study with young and elderly adults. *Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience*, **6**, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00338

Jia, S., Liu, M., Huang, P., Zhao, Y., Tan, S., Go, R., Yan, T., & Wu, J. (2019). Abnormal alpha rhythm during self-referential processing in schizophrenia patients. *Frontiers in Psychiatry*, **10**. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00691.

Jimenez, A. M., Lee, J., Wynn, J. K., & Green, M. F. (2018). The neural correlates of self-referential memory encoding and retrieval in schizophrenia. *Neuropsychologia*, **109**, 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.12.004

Kassambara, A. (2020). Ggpub: 'ggplot2' based publication ready plots. *R Package (Version 0.4.0) [Computer software]* Version 0.4.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package-ggpubr.

Kay, S. R., Fiszbein, A., & Opler, L. A. (1987). The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. *Schizophrenia Bulletin*, **13**(2), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/13.2.261

Kim, S. (2015). ppcor: An R package for a fast calculation to semi-partial correlation coefficients. *Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods*, **22**(6), 665-674. https://doi.org/10.5351/CSAM.2015.22.6.665

Klein, S. B. (2012). Self, memory, and the self-reference effect: An examination of conceptual and methodological issues. *Personality and Social Psychology Review*, **16**(3), 283-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311434214

Krebs, M.-O., Gut-Fayand, A., Bourdel, M.-C., Dischamp, J., & Olié, J.-P. (2000). Validation and factorial structure of a standardized neurological examination assessing neurological soft signs in schizophrenia. *Schizophrenia Research*, **45**(3), 245-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-9964(99)00206-6

Krebs, M.-O., Magaud, E., Willard, D., Elkazen, C., Chauchot, F., Gut, A., Morvan, Y., Bourdel, M.-C., & Kazes, M. (2014). Evaluation des États Mentaux À Risque de Transition Psychotique: Validation de la Version Française de la CAARMS. *L'Encéphale*, **40**(6), 447-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2013.12.003

Kwok, S. C., Xu, X., Duan, W., Wang, X., Tang, Y., Allé, M. C., & Berna, F. (2021). Autobiographical and episodic memory deficits in schizophrenia: A narrative review and proposed agenda for research. *Clinical Psychology Review*, **83**, Article 101956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101956

La Paglia, F., La Cascia, C., Rizzo, R., Sideli, L., Francomano, A., & La Barbera, D. (2013). Cognitive rehabilitation of schizophrenia through NeuroVR training. *Studies in Health Technology and Informatics*, **191**, 158-162.

Lalanne, J., Rozenberg, J., Grolleau, P., & Piolino, P. (2013). The self-reference effect on episodic memory recollection in young and older adults and alzheimer's disease. *Current Alzheimer Research*, **10**(10), 1107-1117.

Lançon, C., Reine, G., Llorca, P. M., & Auquier, P. (1999). Validity and reliability of the French-language version of the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS). *Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica*, **100**(3), 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1999.tb10851.x

Landgraf, S., Krebs, M.-O., Olié, J.-P., Committeri, G., Van Der Meer, E., Berthoz, A., & Amado, I. (2010). Real world referencing and schizophrenia: Are we experiencing the same reality? *Neuropsychologia*, **48**(10), 2922-2930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.05.034

Le Roy, V. (2011). I. Le problème du binding ou de l'intégration des informations dans la schizophrénie. In A. Prouteau (Ed.), *Neuropsychologie clinique de la schizophrénie* (pp. 21-54). Dunod. https://doi.org/10.3917/dunod.prout.2011.01.0021.

Lenormand, D., Fauvel, B., & Piolino, P. (2024). The Formation of episodic autobiographical memory is predicted by mental imagery, self-reference, and anticipated details. *Frontiers in Psychology*, **15**. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1353543

Lenormand, D., Mentec, I., Gaston-Bellegarde, A., Orriols, E., & Piolino, P. (2024). Decoding episodic autobiographical memory in naturalistic virtual reality. *Scientific Reports*, **14**(2), Article 52639. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-76944-3

Lenth, R. V. (2022). *Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means aka Least-Squares Means R package version 1.7.5 [Computer software]*.

Leucht, S., Samara, M., Heres, S., & Davis, J. M. (2016). Dose equivalents for antipsychotic drugs: The DDD method. *Schizophrenia Bulletin*, **42**(suppl 1), S90-S94. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbv167

Makowski, D., Sperduti, M., Nicolas, S., & Piolino, P. (2017). "Being there" and remembering it: Presence improves memory encoding. *Consciousness and Cognition*, **53**, 194-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.06.015

Martin, B., Wittmann, M., Franck, N., Cermolacce, M., Berna, F., & Giersch, A. (2014). Temporal structure of consciousness and minimal self in schizophrenia. *Frontiers in Psychology*, **5**. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01175.

Maselli, A., & Slater, M. (2013). The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion. *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience*, **7**. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00083

Maselli, A., & Slater, M. (2014). Sliding perspectives: Dissociating ownership from self-location during full body illusions in virtual reality. *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience*, **8**. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00693.

Meléndez, J. C., Redondo, R., Escudero, J., Satorres, E., & Pitarque, A. (2019). Executive functions, episodic autobiographical memory, problem-solving capacity, and depression proposal for a structural equations model. *Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology*, **32**(2), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988718824037

Meneghetti, C., Borella, E., Muffato, V., Pazzaglia, F., & De Beni, R. (2014). Environment learning from spatial descriptions: The role of perspective and spatial abilities in young and older adults. *Spatial Cognition*, **IX**, 30-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_3

Meneghetti, C., Ronconi, L., Pazzaglia, F., & De Beni, R. (2014). Spatial mental representations derived from spatial descriptions: The predicting and mediating roles of spatial preferences, strategies, and abilities. *British Journal of Psychology*, **105**(3), 295-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12038

Montgomery, S. A., & Asberg, M. (1979). A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. *British Journal of Psychiatry*, **134**(4), 382-389. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjpn.134.4.382

Moritz, S., Woodward, T. S., Cuttler, C., Whitman, J. C., & Watson, J. M. (2004). False memories in schizophrenia. *Neuropsychology*, **18**(2), 276-283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.18.2.276

Moritz, S., Woodward, T. S., & Ruff, C. C. (2003). Source monitoring and memory confidence in schizophrenia. *Psychological Medicine*, **33**(1), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291702006852

Morosini, P.L., Magliano, L., Brambilla, L., Ugolini, S., & Pioli, R. (2000). Development, reliability and acceptability of a new version of the DSM-IV social and occupational functioning assessment scale (SOFAS) to assess routine social functioning. *Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica*, **101**(4), 323-329. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.101004323.x

Moscovitch, M., Cabeza, R., Winocur, G., & Nadel, L. (2016). Episodic memory and beyond: The Hippocampus and neocortex in transformation. *Annual Review of Psychology*, **67**(1), 105-134. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143733

Mouaffak, F., Morvan, Y., Bannour, S., Chayet, M., Bourdel, M.-C., Thepaut, G., Kazes, M., Guelfi, J.-D., Millet, B., Olié, J.-P., & Krebs, M.-O. (2010). Validation of the French version of the expanded Brief psychiatric rating scale with anchor BPRS-E (A). *L'Encéphale*, **36**(4), 294-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2009.04.003

Nelson, B., Thompson, A., & Yung, A. R. (2012). Basic self-disturbance predicts psychosis onset in the ultra high risk for psychosis 'prodromal' population. *Schizophrenia Bulletin*, **38**(6), 1277-1287. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbs007

Nurnberger, J. I., Jr., Blehar, M. C., Kaufmann, C. A., York-Cooler, C., Simpson, S. G., Harkavy-Friedman, J., Severe, J. B., Malaspinza, D., & Reich, T. (1994). Diagnostic interview for genetic studies: Rationale, unique features, and training. *Archives of General Psychiatry*, **51**(11), 849-859. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950110009002
Park, H. Y., Park, K., Seo, E., Koo, S. J., Bang, M., Park, J. Y., Kang, J. I., Lee, E., Lee, S.-K., & An, S. K. (2020). Reduced activation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex during self-referential processing in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis. *Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry*, *54*(5), 528–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867419898529

Parnas, J., Møller, P., Kircher, T., Thalbitzer, J., Jansson, L., Handest, P., & Zahavi, D. (2005). Ease: Examination of anomalous self-experience. *Psychopathology*, *38*(5), 236–258. https://doi.org/10.1159/000088441

Pauly, K., Kircher, T., Weber, J., Schneider, F., & Habel, U. (2011). Self-concept, emotion and memory performance in schizophrenia. *Psychiatry Research*, *186*(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2010.08.017

Pause, B. M., Zlomuzica, A., Kinugawa, K., Mariani, J., Pietrowsky, R., & Dere, E. (2013). Perspectives on episodic-like and episodic memory. *Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience*, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbeh.2013.000033

Pazzaglia, F., De Beni, R., & Meneghetti, C. (2007). The effects of verbal and spatial interference in the encoding and retrieval of spatial and nonspatial texts. *Psychological Research*, *71*(4), 484–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0045-7

Penaud, S., Jebara, N., Zaoui, M., Orriols, E., Berthoz, A., & Piolino, P. (2022). Episodic memory and self-reference in a naturalistic context: New insights based on a virtual walk in the Latin quarter of Paris. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, *81*, Article 101801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101801

Penaud, S., Yeh, D., Gaston-Bellegarde, A., & Piolino, P. (2023). The role of bodily self-consciousness in episodic memory of naturalistic events: An immersive virtual reality study. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2915494/v1.

Picard, L., Abram, M., Orriols, E., & Piolino, P. (2017). Virtual reality as an ecologically valid tool for assessing multifaceted episodic memory in children and adolescents. *International Journal of Behavioral Development*, *41*(2), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415616198

Picard, L., Cousin, S., Guillery-Girard, B., Eustache, F., & Piolino, P. (2012). How do the different components of episodic memory develop? Role of executive functions and short-term feature-binding abilities. *Child Development*, *83*(3), 1037–1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01736.x

Piolino, P., Coste, C., Martinelli, P., Macé, A.-L., Quinette, P., Guillery-Girard, B., & Belleville, S. (2010). Reduced specificity of autobiographical memory and aging: Do the executive and feature binding functions of working memory have a role? *Neuropsychologia*, *48*(2), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.035

Piolino, P., Desgranges, B., Clarys, D., Guillery-Girard, B., Taconnat, L., Isingrini, M., & Eustache, F. (2006). Autobiographical memory, autonoetic consciousness, and self-perspective in aging. *Psychology and Aging*, *21*(3), 510–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.510

Piolino, P., Desgranges, B., & Eustache, F. (2009). Episodic autobiographical memories over the course of time: Cognitive, neuropsychological and neuroimaging findings. *Neuropsychologia*, *47*(11), 2314–2329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.01.020

Plancher, G., & Piolino, P. (2017). Virtual reality for assessment of episodic memory in normal and pathological aging. In R. L. Kane, & T. D. Parsons (Eds.), *The role of technology in clinical neuropsychology*. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190234737.003.0015.

Plancher, G., Tirard, A., Gyselinck, V., Nicolas, S., & Piolino, P. (2012). Using virtual reality to characterize episodic memory profiles in amnestic mild cognitive impairment and alzheimer's disease: Influence of active and passive encoding. *Neuropsychologia*, *50*(5), 592–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.12.013

Prebble, S. C., Addis, D. R., & Tippett, L. J. (2013). Autobiographical memory and sense of self. *Psychological Bulletin*, *139*(4), 815–840. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030146

Prestopnik, J. L., & Roskos-Ewaldsen, B. (2000). The relations among wayfinding strategy use, sense of direction, sex, familiarity, and wayfinding ability. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, *20*(2), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1006/jepv.1999.0160

R Core Team. (2024). *R: a language and environment for statistical computing*. R Foundation for Statistical Computing [Computer software] https://www.R-project.org/.

Raffard, S., D'Argembeau, A., Lardi, C., Bayard, S., Boulenger, J.-P., Boulenger, J.-P., & Van Der Linden, M. (2009). Exploring self-defining memories in schizophrenia. *Memory*, *17*(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802524232

Raffard, S., D'Argembeau, A., Lardi, C., Bayard, S., Boulenger, J.-P., & Linden, M. V. der (2010). Narrative identity in schizophrenia. *Consciousness and Cognition*, *19*(1), 328–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.10.005

Ragland, J. D., Ranganath, C., Barch, D. M., Gold, J. M., Haley, B., MacDonald, A. W., III, Silverstein, S. M., Strauss, M. E., Yonelinas, A. P., & Carter, C. S. (2012). Relational and item-specific encoding (RISE): Task development and psychometric characteristics. *Schizophrenia Bulletin*, *38*(1), 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbr146

Raine, A. (1991). The SPQ: A scale for the assessment of schizotypal personality based on DSM-III-R criteria. *Schizophrenia Bulletin*, *17*(4), 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/17.4.555

Reggente, N. (2023). VR for cognition and memory. In C. N. Maymon, G. M. Grimshaw, & Y. C. Wu (Eds.), *Virtual reality in behavioral neuroscience: New insights and methods* (Vol. 65). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2023_425.

Reitan, R. M. (1956). *Trail making test. Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation*. Indiana University Press.

Robin, J., & Moscovitch, M. (2014). The effects of spatial contextual familiarity on remembered scenes, episodic memories, and imagined future events. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition*, *40*(2), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034886

Robin, J., Wynn, J., & Moscovitch, M. (2016). The spatial scaffold: The effects of spatial context on memory for events. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition*, *42*(2), 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000167

Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, *35*(9), 677–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.677

Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Slater, M. (2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience*, *6*(4), 332–339. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1651

Sass, L. A., & Parnas, J. (2003). Schizophrenia, consciousness, and the self. *Schizophrenia Bulletin*, *29*(3), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007017

Schubert, T., Friedmanmann, F., & Regenbrecht, H. (2001). The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. *Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments*, *10*(3), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603

Serbun, S. J., Shih, J. Y., & Gutchess, A. H. (2011). Memory for details with self-referencing. *Memory*, *19*(8), 1004–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.626429

Serino, S., Bieler-Aeschlimann, M., Guevara, A. B., Démonet, J.-F., & Serino, A. (2023). The effect of visual perspective on episodic memory in aging: A virtual reality study. *Consciousness and Cognition*, *116*, Article 103603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2023.103603

Shelton, A. L., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Neural correlates of encoding space from route and survey perspectives. *Journal of Neuroscience*, *22*(7), 2711–2717. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-07-02711.2002

Simons, J. S., Ritchey, M., & Fernyhough, C. (2022). Brain mechanisms underlying the subjective experience of remembering. *Annual Review of Psychology*, *73*, 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-030221-025439

Smith, S. A. (2019). Virtual reality in episodic memory research: A review. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, *26*(4), 1213–1237. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01605-w

Stanghellini, G., Ballerini, M., Fusar Poli, P., & Cutting, J. (2012). Abnormal bodily experiences may be a marker of early schizophrenia? *Current Pharmaceutical Design*, *18*(4), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.2174/138161212799316181

Staniloiu, A., Kordon, A., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2020). Quo vadis 'episodic memory'? – Past, present, and perspective. *Neuropsychologia*, *141*, Article 107362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107362

St Jacques, P. L., Szpunar, K. K., & Schacter, D. L. (2017). Shifting visual perspective during retrieval shapes autobiographical memories. *NeuroImage*, *148*, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.028

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. *Journal of Experimental Psychology*, *18*(6), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651

Subirana, I., Sanz, H., & Vila, J. (2014). Building Bivariate Tables: The compareGroups Package for R. *Journal of Statistical Software*, *57*(12), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v057.i12

Sui, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2015). The integrative self: How self-reference integrates perception and memory. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, *19*(12), 719–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.015

Sun, Q., Gu, S., & Yang, J. (2018). Context and time matter: Effects of emotion and motivation on episodic memory over time. *Neural Plasticity*, *2018*(1), Article 7051925. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7051925

Sutin, A. R., & Robins, R. W. (2010). Correlates and phenomenology of first and third person memories. *Memory*, *18*(6), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.497765

Symons, C., & Johnson, B. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. *Psychological Bulletin*, *121*, 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.371

Triberti, S., Sapone, C., & Riva, G. (2025). Being there but where? Sense of presence theory for virtual reality applications. *Humanities and Social Sciences Communications*, *12*(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04380-3

Tuena, C., Serino, S., Dutriaux, L., Riva, G., & Piolino, P. (2019). Virtual enactment effect on memory in young and aged populations: A systematic review. *Journal of Clinical Medicine*, *8*(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8050620

Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. *Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne*, *26*, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080017

Tulving, E. (2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain. *Annual Review of Psychology*, *53*(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114

Valli, I., Tognin, S., Fusar-Poli, P., & Mechelli, A. (2012). Episodic memory dysfunction in individuals at high-risk of psychosis: A systematic review of neuropsychological and neurofunctional studies. *Current Pharmaceutical Design*, *18*(4), 443–458. https://doi.org/10.2174/138161212799316271

Vogeley, K., Busfeld, P., Newen, A., Herrmann, S., Happé, F., Falkai, P., Maier, W., Shah, N. J., Fink, G. R., & Zilles, K. (2001). Mind reading: Neural mechanisms of theory of mind and self-perspective. *NeuroImage*, *14*(1), 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0789

Vogeley, K., May, M., Ritzl, A., Pk, F., Zilles, K., & Fink, G. R. (2004). Neural correlates of first-person perspective as one constituent of human self-consciousness. *Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience*, *16*, 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904970799

Wang, X., Kou, X., Meng, X., & Yu, J. (2022). Effects of a virtual reality serious game training program on the cognitive function of people diagnosed with schizophrenia: A randomized controlled trial. *Frontiers in Psychiatry*, *13*. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.952828

Waters, F. A. V., Maybery, M. T., Badcock, J. C., & Michie, P. T. (2004). Context memory and binding in schizophrenia. *Schizophrenia Research*, *68*(2), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-9964(03)00221-4

Wechsler, D. (1997). WMS-III: Wechsler memory scale administration and scoring manual (3rd ed.). Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (2008). WAIS-IV administration and scoring manual (4th ed.). Pearson.
Wei, T., & Simko, V. (2021). R package 'corrplot': Visualization of a correlation matrix (version 0.92) Version 0.92. https://github.com/taiyun/corrplot.

Wickham, H. (2009). *ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis*. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3

Yeh, D., Penaud, S., Gaston-Bellegarde, A., Scoriels, L., Krebs, M.-O., & Piolino, P. (2024). Impact of minimal self disorders on naturalistic episodic memory in first-episode psychosis and parallels in healthy individuals with schizotypal traits. *Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15*, Article 1469390. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1469390

Yonelinas, A., Ranganath, C., Ekstrom, A., & Wiltgen, B. (2019). A contextual binding theory of episodic memory: Systems consolidation reconsidered. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience*, 20(6), 364–375. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-019-0150-4

Zhang, Y., Kuhn, S. K., Jobson, L., & Haque, S. (2019). A review of autobiographical memory studies on patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. *BMC Psychiatry*, 19(1), 361. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2346-6

Zhao, Y., Zhang, D., Tan, S., Song, C., Cui, J., Fan, F., Zhu, X., Zou, Y., & Luo, Y. (2014). Neural correlates of the abolished self-referential memory effect in schizophrenia. *Psychological Medicine*, 44(3), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291713001177