Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38316708›Full record

ReviewCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2024

Opening new vistas on obsessive-compulsive disorder with the observing response task.

Luise Pickenhan, Amy L Milton

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Luise PickenhanDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Site, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK.
Amy L MiltonDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Site, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK. alm46@cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0175-9417

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), a highly prevalent and debilitating disorder, is incompletely understood in terms of underpinning behavioural, psychological, and neural mechanisms. This is attributable to high symptomatic heterogeneity; cardinal features comprise obsessions and compulsions, including clinical subcategories. While obsessive and intrusive thoughts are arguably unique to humans, dysfunctional behaviours analogous to those seen in clinical OCD have been examined in nonhuman animals. Genetic, ethological, pharmacological, and neurobehavioural approaches all contribute to understanding the emergence and persistence of compulsive behaviour. One behaviour of particular interest is maladaptive checking, whereby human patients excessively perform checking rituals despite these serving no purpose. Dysfunctional and excessive checking is the most common symptom associated with OCD and can be readily operationalised in rodents. This review considers animal models of OCD, the neural circuitries associated with impairments in habit-based and goal-directed behaviour, and how these may link to the compulsions observed in OCD. We further review the Observing Response Task (ORT), an appetitive instrumental learning procedure that distinguishes between functional and dysfunctional checking, with translational application in humans and rodents. By shedding light on the psychological and neural bases of compulsive-like checking, the ORT has potential to offer translational insights into the underlying mechanisms of OCD, in addition to being a platform for testing psychological and neurochemical treatment approaches.

Indexed as

NeuropsychologyObsessive-Compulsive DisorderAnimalsCompulsive BehaviorConditioning, OperantDisease Models, AnimalHumansAnimal modelsCheckingObsessive-compulsive disorder

Identifiers

PMID38316708
PMCPMC11039534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.