ArticlePsychopharmacology2026
Probing the habitual and compulsive-like basis of (dys)functional checking in the Observing Response Task, a rodent analogue relevant to obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleExcessive and maladaptive checking is a prominent symptom of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). This dysfunctional checking can be modelled using the Observing Response Task (ORT), which distinguishes between functional and dysfunctional checking shown by the same individuals, in rodents and humans. We have previously observed that rats classified as sign-trackers on a pavlovian autoshaping procedure show elevated levels of dysfunctional checking.
objectivesWe sought to determine whether dysfunctional checking was habitual and compulsive.
methods119 Lister Hooded rats (M = 95, F = 24) were classified using pavlovian autoshaping and concurrently underwent ORT training. Briefly, rats learned to respond on one of two levers to receive reinforcement, with the correct lever changing unpredictably throughout the session. Pressing a third, 'observing' lever illuminated a light cue over the currently correct lever. These functional Observing Lever Presses (OLPs) can be distinguished from dysfunctional Extra Observing Lever Presses (eOLPs), which have no programmed consequences. Whether dysfunctional checking was habitual was examined by degrading the contingency between checking and light cue presentation, and whether it was compulsive was determined by punishing 50% of checking responses.
resultsSign-trackers showed higher levels of dysfunctional checking than goal-trackers and intermediates, including after contingency degradation. Punished checking eradicated checking behaviour in most rats, but a minority of sign-trackers persisted despite punishment via shock.
conclusionsThese data support the hypothesis that sign-trackers exhibit more cue-driven checking behaviour than goal-trackers. Observations from punished checking refer to the prevalence of severe OCD in the human population concerning persistence of pathological checking despite aversive consequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.