Cited by 18Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

N2 AND P3 POTENTIALS IN EARLY-ONSET AND LATE-ONSET PATIENTS WITH OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDER: Research Article: N2 and P3 Potentials in OCD

Open access
Keskin-Ergen, Yasemin, Tükel, Raşit, Aslantaş-Ertekin, Banu, Ertekin, Erhan, Oflaz, Serap, Devrim-Üçok, Müge·2014·Depression and Anxiety

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Impaired cognitive control processes may be central in the pathogenesis of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Our objective was to evaluate cognitive control processes with event-related potentials in early-onset OCD (EO) and late-onset OCD (LO), which are suggested to have distinct characteristics. METHODS: Participants were unmedicated EO (n = 26) and LO patients (n = 33) without comorbid psychopathology and healthy controls (n = 54). Go/No-go tasks with 50 and 80% Go trial probabilities were implemented to manipulate the strength of response conflict and inhibitory demands. RESULTS: LO patients had shorter N2 latencies than controls and did not show the N2 amplitude increase seen in controls with the increase in Go trial probability as suggestive of abnormal conflict monitoring processes. Both EO and LO patients showed smaller P3 increase than controls with the increase in Go trial probability, suggesting problems in modifying attentional control with changes in task demands. P3 was more anteriorly distributed in LO patients than controls. Additionally, P3 increase, with the increase in Go trial probability, was larger in frontal and central sites than in parietal sites in controls, whereas in EO patients it was almost homogenous across anteroposterior sites. CONCLUSIONS: N2 processes were affected only in LO, whereas P3 processes were affected in both EO and LO, although, somewhat differently. P3 distributions suggest that EO and LO patients have differences concerning the contributions of frontal and parietal components of attentional networks to the execution of Go/No-go tasks. Our results imply that EO and LO are distinct subtypes affecting the cognitive control systems differently.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/da.22212

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The overall literature supports the notion that OCD is associated with atypical neural responses during inhibition tasks, making the No-Go N2 and P3 valuable neural biomarkers of OCD-related cognitive dysfunction.

    “Nonetheless, the overall literature supports the notion that OCD is associated with atypical neural responses during inhibition tasks, making the No-Go N2 and P3 valuable neural biomarkers of OCD-related cognitive dysfunction [24].”

    From Neural correlates of response inhibition following cognitive behavioral therapy in obsessive–compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled EEG study (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Introduction and conclusion (pages unavailable in our copy) support atypical N2 and P3 responses during Go/No-go tasks in OCD, but the conclusion limits N2 differences to late-onset patients. The paper describes earlier findings as inconsistent and says its P3 group differences were independent of Go versus No-go trial type. It calls ERPs promising tools for studying cognitive control, but does not establish No-Go N2 and P3 as valuable neural biomarkers of OCD-related dysfunction. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 61 · Cited by 18

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First M, Spitzer R, Gibbon M, Williams J. Structured Clinical In- terview for DSM-IV Clinical Version (SCID-I/CV). Washington, DC.: American Psychiatric Press; 1997.

Authors
Keskin-Ergen, Y., Tükel, R., Aslantaş-Ertekin, B., Ertekin, E., Oflaz, S., & Devrim-Üçok, M.
Affiliations
  • Istanbul University (TR)
  • Department of Psychiatry, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine; Istanbul University; Istanbul Turkey
  • Department of Physiology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine; Istanbul University; Istanbul Turkey
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Published
2013-11-10
Volume
31
Issue
12
Pages
997-1006
ISSN
1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1523041795
Cited by
18
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
obsessive-compulsive disorder, early-onset OCD, late-onset OCD, N2 component, P300, event-related potentials, cognitive control, conflict monitoring, response inhibition, attentional control, go/no-go task, response conflict
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Cognition, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Reaction Time, Case-Control Studies, Age of Onset

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review