204. Application path of piano sight-reading training in early intervention of psychosis

Abstract Background The detection rate of Psychosis Risk Syndrome (PRS) among college students is increasingly attracting attention. The early stages are a critical period for the development of individual cognitive function and emotion regulation abilities, and also the best window for early intervention in mental illness. Traditional drug interventions have significant side effects, while general psychological counseling has limited effectiveness in improving cognitive deficits. Piano sight-reading is a highly complex cognitive task, requiring performers to complete visual decoding, auditory prediction, motor planning, and immediate feedback adjustments within a very short time. This multimodal brain training may improve core cognitive deficits in PRS individuals by strengthening the prefrontal-hippocampal circuit. This study aims to explore the impact of standardized piano sight-reading training as a non-pharmacological intervention pathway on cognitive function and clinical symptoms in college students with PRS. Methods 90 non-music majors who met the diagnostic criteria of PRS were selected from three universities. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: (1) the sight-reading training group (n = 45), who received a 16-week progressive piano sight-reading course focusing on rapid response training for “see-play” synchronization; (2) the music appreciation group (n = 45), who received a 16-week classical music appreciation course. The primary assessment indicators included: the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) for evaluating clinical symptoms, and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) for assessing executive function. Data were collected at baseline and at week 16 of intervention. Results There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline data, as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, after 16 weeks of intervention, the sight-reading training group had lower total BPRS scores (28.4 vs 35.2) and anxiety and depression factor scores (8.2 vs 11.5), indicating milder psychiatric symptoms. In terms of cognitive function, the group had a higher number of completed categories (5.8 vs 4.1) and fewer persistent errors (10.5 vs 19.2), with p values