CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 46Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Punishment promotes response control deficits in obsessive-compulsive disorder: evidence from a motivational go/no-go task

Open access
Morein-Zamir, S., Papmeyer, M., Gillan, C. M., Crockett, M. J., Fineberg, N. A., Sahakian, B. J., Robbins, T. W.·2013·Psychological Medicine
DOI 10.1017/s0033291712001018PMC PMC3544546
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has been associated with response inhibition deficits under motivationally neutral contingencies. We examined response inhibition performance in the presence of reward and punishment. We further investigated whether the hypothesized difficulties in flexibly updating behaviour based on external feedback in OCD would also lead to a reduced ability to adjust to changes in the reward and punishment contingencies. Method: Participants completed a go/no-go task that used punishments or rewards to promote response activation or suppression. The task was administered to OCD patients free of current Axis-I co-morbidities including major depression ( n = 20) and a group of healthy controls ( n = 32). Results: Compared with controls, patients with OCD had increased commission errors in punishment conditions, and failed to slow down immediately after receiving punishment. The punishment-induced increase in commission errors correlated with self-report measures of OCD symptom severity. Additionally, patients did not differ from controls in adapting their overall response style to the changes in task contingencies. Conclusions: Individuals with OCD showed reduced response control selectively under punishment conditions, manifesting in an impulsive response style that was related to their current symptom severity. This stresses failures of cognitive control in OCD, particularly under negative motivational contingencies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291712001018

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

20 of 57 cited sources checked · 14 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Reduced sensitivity to the outcomes of actions may promote reduced flexibility in a changing environment.

    “Reduced sensitivity to the outcome of actions (Gillan et al. 2011) may further promote decreased flexibility in a changing environment, with a deficit in the processing of action-related feedback resulting in difficulties in updating action goals (Olley et al. 2007; Nielen et al. 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Gillan et al. 2011 source
    • cites Olley et al. 2007 source
    • cites Nielen et al. 2009 source
  • Premisecitation

    OCD patients who learned from positive and negative feedback as well as controls did later show an enhanced negative learning bias.

    “Additionally, while OCD patients could learn using positive and negative feedback as well as controls in a different task, they later demonstrated an enhanced negative learning bias (Endrass et al. 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Endrass et al. 2011 source
  • Interpretationown data

    The findings are unlikely to be explained by negative urgency.

    “These findings are also unlikely to be attributable to negative urgency (Cyders & Smith, 2008), whereby individuals tend to engage in rash, illadvised actions when distressed, as other performance indices (e.g. latencies and response style effects) were not abnormal under punishment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cyders & Smith, 2008 source
    • Rests on an assumption: Negative urgency would be expected to affect other performance indices such as latencies and response style under punishment.
  • Interpretationcitation

    Punishment-induced negative emotion is unlikely to explain the observed response inhibition deficits in OCD.

    “Mere negative emotion induced by the punishment is unlikely to explain the present findings, as in previous studies negative affective stimuli did not influence response inhibition in OCD (Chamberlain et al. 2007a; Morein-Zamir et al. 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chamberlain et al. 2007a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Morein-Zamir et al. 2010 source
    • Rests on an assumption: The negative emotion induced by punishment in this task is comparable to negative affective stimuli used in previous studies.
  • Premisecitation

    Acute tryptophan depletion removed punishment-induced inhibition in the same task.

    “tryptophan depletion eliminated punishment-induced inhibition in the same task (Crockett et al. 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Crockett et al. 2009 source
  • May combine two claims. 27
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    OCD patients show slowed stop-signal response times even though their response latencies are comparable to those of healthy controls.

    “For example, OCD patients had slowed stop-signal response times (RTs) despite response latencies that were comparable with those of healthy controls (Chamberlain et al. 2007b; Morein-Zamir et al. 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chamberlain et al. 2007b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Morein-Zamir et al. 2010 source

      The Results (Analysis of stop phase) report impaired inhibition in OCD patients and no significant group difference in go-response latencies. They measure inhibition as the percentage of successful stops, however, rather than reporting slowed stop-signal response times; the reported post-stop RT slowing concerns switching and is specific to OCD-relevant stimuli. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Avoidance behaviors are common and intrinsic to OCD, and patients learn especially well to avoid negative stimuli.

    “Avoidance behaviours are common and inherent to OCD, with patients learning particularly well to avoid negative stimuli (Endrass et al. 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Endrass et al. 2011 source

      The Abstract reports that OCD patients were better at avoiding stimuli associated with negative outcomes, and the Discussion links this finding to harm avoidance. The paper does not establish that avoidance behaviours themselves are common and inherent to OCD; its Introduction identifies compulsions and intrusive thoughts as defining features. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Cognitive inflexibility in OCD has been reported when new rules must be learned from feedback, with impairments in medicated patients on an attentional set-shifting task.

    “Cognitive inflexibility in OCD patients has been reported when they are required to learn new rules based on feedback; specifically, impairments in medicated patients were found in an attentional set-shifting task (Watkins et al. 2005; Chamberlain et al. 2007b)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Watkins et al. 2005 source

      The attentional set-shifting results (pp. 7, 9) show that OCD patients were selectively impaired at the extra-dimensional shift, supporting the cognitive-inflexibility claim. But the OCD sample included ten unmedicated patients (Obsessive-compulsive disorder patients, p. 5), and the paper does not report the impairment specifically for medicated patients; its medication analysis found no significant differences between SSRI-treated and unmedicated patients (p. 8). (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Chamberlain et al. 2007b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The four experimental feedback blocks were given in counterbalanced order.

    “Participants performed a go/no-go task and completed four experimental feedback blocks in counterbalanced order (Crockett et al. 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Crockett et al. 2009 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Response inhibition difficulties would be most evident when countermanding an already initiated response or when additional processing demands exist, such as complex or changing response-stimulus mappings.

    “Response inhibition difficulties would be most apparent when countermanding an already initiated response (Menzies et al. 2007) or with additional processing demands such as complex or changing response-stimulus mappings (Bannon et al. 2002; Watkins et al. 2005; Nielen et al. 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Menzies et al. 2007 source
    • cites Bannon et al. 2002 source
    • cites Watkins et al. 2005 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The two other behavioural tasks were completed in counterbalanced order in the same session.

    “Participants completed two other behavioural tasks, unrelated to the present study (Gillan et al. 2011), in a counterbalanced order during the same session.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gillan et al. 2011 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Still other studies report OCD difficulties only when extra cognitive demands, such as reversing the go/no-go rules, are added.

    “while still others have indicated difficulties only when introducing additional cognitive demands such as reversing the go/no-go rules (Watkins et al. 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Watkins et al. 2005 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Inhibitory control under threat of punishment likely depends on neural substrates for response inhibition, such as the inferior frontal gyrus, and on additional systems activated by aversive conditions, such as affective orbitofrontal-ventral striatal systems.

    “Inhibitory control under the threat of punishment is likely to depend both on the functioning of neural substrates mediating response inhibition, such as the inferior frontal gyrus (Menzies et al. 2008), and additional systems activated under aversive conditions, such as affective orbitofrontal-ventral striatal systems (Graybiel & Rauch, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Menzies et al. 2008 source
    • cites Graybiel & Rauch, 2000 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    An earlier study with a comparable task reported slower responding under punishment than under reward, and this difference disappeared after acute tryptophan depletion.

    “A previous study using a similar task found slowing in the punished relative to rewarded conditions and this was abolished under acute tryptophan depletion (Crockett et al. 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Crockett et al. 2009 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The recruitment and interplay of several neural substrates, each thought to be abnormal in OCD, may prevent compensatory neural mechanisms and lead to behavioral impairments.

    “It may well be that the recruitment and interplay of several neural substrates, each thought to be abnormal in OCD (Menzies et al. 2008) preclude the use of potential compensatory neural mechanisms sometimes reported (Rauch et al. 2007; Henseler et al. 2008), and result in behavioural impairments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Menzies et al. 2008 source
    • cites Rauch et al. 2007 source
    • cites Henseler et al. 2008 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    SSRI equivalence values did not correlate with the punishment-induced increase in commission errors or with post-error slowing.

    “SSRI equivalence values did not correlate with punishment-induced increase in commission errors [r=−0.05, t(18)=−0.23, p>0.81] nor with post-error slowing [r=−0.04, t(18)=−0.17, p>0.85].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the no-feedback blocks, there were no effects of previous feedback, response style or group.

    “Analyses of the no-feedback blocks did not reveal any effects of previous feedback, response style or group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Response style affected the proportion of hits under punishment but not under reward.

    “There was also an interaction between feedback and response style [F(1, 50)=4.90, p<0.05], such that there was a significant response style effect under punishment [F(1, 50)=21.20, p<0.001], but not under reward [F(1, 50)=1.45, p>0.22].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A three-way interaction of group, response style and feedback on response times was found, driven by marginally faster responses in no-go than go bias punishment blocks in patients but not controls.

    “Finally, a three-way interaction between group, response style and feedback [F(1, 50)=6.13, p<0.05] appeared to stem from marginally faster RTs in no-go compared with the go bias punishment blocks for patients [F(1, 50)=3.20, p<0.08] but not controls [F(1, 50) <1, p>0.54].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    OCD patients had more severe OCD symptoms (OCI-R, PI-R) and higher anxiety (STAI) than controls.

    “Patients had worse OCD symptoms (OCI-R and PI-R) and increased anxiety (STAI).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Controls slowed down after punishment, whereas OCD patients did not, with a between-group difference effect size of Cohen's d 0.60.

    “this was moderated by an interaction between group and prior punishment [F(1, 50)=4.49, p<0.05] whereby controls responded slower after punishment [F(1, 50)=28.26, p<0.001], but patients did not [F(1, 50)=2.26, p>0.13].”
    • Also stated in: § Slowing on trials immediately following punishment · plain
      “A direct comparison between the groups of the difference scores between post-punished and post-non-punished trials was significant [F(1, 50)=4.49, p<0.05], with a Cohen’s d effect size of 0.60.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The healthy control participants were free of psychiatric illness, a status established only by their own report.
    • Rests on an assumption: Slowing of responses after punishment is the normative, adaptive reaction to punishment.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the no-feedback blocks, responses slowed after an incorrect trial, with no difference between groups.

    “There was significant slowing after an incorrect trial [F(1, 49)=4.79, p<0.05], but no interaction with group [F(1, 49) <1, p>0.43].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Response times were faster in go bias than no-go bias conditions under reward, but not under punishment.

    “There was an interaction between response style and feedback [F(1, 50)=22.07, p<0.01], such that latencies were faster in go compared with no-go bias conditions under reward [F(1, 50)=21.69, p<0.001] but not punishment [F(1, 50)=1.06, p>0.30].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The three-way interaction of group, feedback and response style on hits was not significant.

    “The three-way interaction between group, feedback and response style was not significant [F(1, 50) <1, p>0.50].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The effect of feedback on commission errors was present in no-go biased blocks but absent in go biased blocks.

    “Additionally, there was an interaction between response style and feedback [F(1, 50)=4.57, p<0.05], with an effect of feedback in no-go biased blocks [F(1, 50)=11.21, p<0.01], but not go biased blocks [F(1, 50) <1, p>0.88].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The punishment-related increase in commission errors correlated with OCI-R (r=0.60) and PI-R (r=0.53) scores but not with YBOCS scores (r=0.29).

    “Punishment-related increase in commission errors correlated significantly with both OCI-R and PI-R but not YBOCS scores [r=0.60, t(18)=3.19, p<0.01; r=0.53, t(18)=2.64, p<0.017; and r=0.29, t(18)=0.86, p>0.40, respectively]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    There was no significant three-way interaction of group, response style and feedback on commission errors.

    “There was no significant interaction between group, response style and feedback [F(1, 50) <1, p>0.80].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    No other correlations between patient characteristics and task performance measures were significant.

    “No other correlations were significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Patients with OCD displayed a punishment-specific inhibitory deficit, responding more impulsively than controls only when punishment was involved.

    “The present study found an inhibitory deficit in OCD specifically under punishment conditions.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
      “At the same time they demonstrated a more impulsive response style compared with controls selectively under punishment conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The reduced tendency to respond appeared as more misses under punishment and as slower responses under reward.

    “That a reduced tendency to respond manifested under punishment in increased misses while under reward it manifested in slower responding is in line with this possibility.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Some studies report that OCD patients have difficulty withholding responses, producing more commission errors.

    “Some studies have shown OCD patients to have difficulties withholding responses, resulting in increased commission errors (Bannon et al. 2002; Penades et al. 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bannon et al. 2002 source
    • cites Penades et al. 2007 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Patients were screened by a consultant psychiatrist using an extended semi-structured clinical interview to confirm DSM-IV-TR OCD and the absence of current comorbid Axis-I disorders.

    “A total of 20 OCD patients (55% female) were recruited from a specialist OCD out-patient clinic following screening by a consultant psychiatrist (N.A.F.) to ensure that they met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn, text revision (DSM-IV-TR; APA, 2000) criteria for OCD and were free of current co-morbid Axis-I disorders, including major depression.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Learning from negative feedback is abnormal in OCD, with patients struggling to learn from punishing feedback even after extensive practice.

    “There is evidence to suggest that learning based on negative feedback is abnormal in OCD, with patients having difficulties learning from punishing feedback even after extensive practice (Nielen et al. 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nielen et al. 2009 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    It remains unclear which aspects of cognitive flexibility are impaired in OCD.

    “Thus, at present it remains unclear which particular aspects of cognitive flexibility are impaired in OCD.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The findings point to failures of cognitive control in OCD, especially under negative motivational contingencies.

    “This stresses failures of cognitive control in OCD, particularly under negative motivational contingencies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Performance on reversal learning tasks can be intact in OCD.

    “Although performance on reversal learning tasks can be intact in OCD (Chamberlain et al. 2007a)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chamberlain et al. 2007a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Aversive performance-related punishment, both its presence and anticipation, probably accounts for the current findings.

    “Rather, the presence and anticipation of aversive performance-related punishment probably underlie the current results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Other studies report unimpaired go/no-go performance in OCD.

    “Others found unimpaired performance (Maltby et al. 2005; Bohne et al. 2008; Page et al. 2009)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Maltby et al. 2005 source
    • cites Bohne et al. 2008 source
    • cites Page et al. 2009 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Individual stimulus duration was set from each participant's mean correct response time in practice, to equate task difficulty across participants.

    “Mean RT for correct responses in the practice session constituted the individual’s stimulus duration, to match task difficulty across participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The discrepancy between self-report and YBOCS correlations may stem from differences in the measures.

    “This disparity may be due to the nature of the measures; the YBOCS is openended, interview-based and includes items regarding the patient’s resistance and control over their symptoms, whereas the self-report questionnaires focus on specific possible symptoms (e.g. repeatedly checking doors, windows, drawers, etc.) and patients rate the intensity of distress or degree of disturbance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study was approved by an ethics committee and all participants gave written informed consent.

    “The study was approved by the Hertfordshire Research Ethics Committee, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants before beginning the session.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study did not actively screen patients for personality disorders or lifetime Axis-I disorders, including major depressive disorder.

    “In this study patients were not actively screened for personality disorders or lifetime Axis-I disorders, such as major depressive disorder”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Most studies focus on neural correlates at the time of error commission and do not find behavioral differences in post-error slowing.

    “However, most studies focus on neural correlates at the time of committing an error and do not find behavioural differences in post-error slowing (Endrass et al. 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Endrass et al. 2010 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    SSRI drug treatment increases serotonergic activity.

    “which enhances serotonergic activity (Stahl, 2008)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stahl, 2008

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These unscreened factors might have influenced patient performance, but their link to the observed impairments is unclear.

    “These factors may have affected patient performance, although it remains unclear how they would be linked to the impairments found in the present study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Tourette's disorder was excluded, but tic severity was not systematically assessed.

    “although we excluded Tourette’s disorder, tic severity was not systematically evaluated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
41 of 41

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The healthy control participants were free of psychiatric illness, a status established only by their own report.

    “A group of 32 controls (59% female), reporting no psychiatric illness, history of head injury or neurological disorder or psychotropic medication use, also completed the task.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Slowing of responses after punishment is the normative, adaptive reaction to punishment.

    “did not demonstrate the expected slowing following punishment (Figs 1 and 3)”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Slowing following errors reflects engagement of cognitive control mechanisms.

    “Slowing following errors is typically interpreted as the engagement of cognitive control mechanisms.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The negative emotion induced by punishment in this task is comparable to negative affective stimuli used in previous studies.

    “Mere negative emotion induced by the punishment is unlikely to explain the present findings, as in previous studies negative affective stimuli did not influence response inhibition in OCD (Chamberlain et al. 2007a; Morein-Zamir et al. 2010).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Negative urgency would be expected to affect other performance indices such as latencies and response style under punishment.

    “These findings are also unlikely to be attributable to negative urgency (Cyders & Smith, 2008), whereby individuals tend to engage in rash, illadvised actions when distressed, as other performance indices (e.g. latencies and response style effects) were not abnormal under punishment.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Frequent no-go trials (half the trials) make inhibitory demands less taxing.

    “It is likely that in the reward and no-feedback conditions, inhibitory demands were not suffciently taxing, as no-go trials were frequent, constituting half the trials.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Correlation of inhibitory impairment with clinical characteristics indicates state dependence.

    “In support of this, the current inhibitory impairment appeared to be state dependent, in contrast to previous findings where inhibitory performance under neutral conditions did not correlate with clinical characteristics (Chamberlain et al. 2007b).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    An overactive monitoring system in OCD would produce greater post-error slowing.

    “Seemingly, the results appear inconsistent with reports of an overactive monitoring system in OCD (Gehring et al. 2000; Stern et al. 2011).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The task's instructed response style switching is comparable to instructed task switching in previous studies.

    “Thus, as is often the case with instructed task switching (Moritz et al. 2004), OCD patients did not appear to be impaired when the task rules were explicit and practised.”
9 of 9

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 9.09reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .004

    “F(1, 50)=9.09, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 4.77reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .034

    “F(1, 50)=4.77, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 10.97reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(1, 50)=10.97, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) < 1reported p > .5 · recomputed p = .322

    “F(1, 50) <1, p > .50”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 4.23reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .045

    “F(1, 50)=4.23, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 4.57reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .037

    “F(1, 50)=4.57, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 11.21reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(1, 50)=11.21, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) < 1reported p > .88 · recomputed p = .322

    “F(1, 50) <1, p > .88”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) < 1reported p > .8 · recomputed p = .322

    “F(1, 50) <1, p > .80”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 19.19reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 50)=19.19, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 4.9reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .031

    “F(1, 50)=4.90, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 21.2reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 50)=21.20, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 1.45reported p > .22 · recomputed p = .234

    “F(1, 50)=1.45, p > .22”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 14.29reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 50)=14.29, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 8.3reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .006

    “F(1, 50)=8.30, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 8.82reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(1, 50)=8.82, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 22.07reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 50)=22.07, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 21.69reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 50)=21.69, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 1.06reported p > .3 · recomputed p = .308

    “F(1, 50)=1.06, p > .30”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 6.13reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .017

    “F(1, 50)=6.13, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 3.2reported p < .08 · recomputed p = .080

    “F(1, 50)=3.20, p < .08”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) < 1reported p > .54 · recomputed p = .322

    “F(1, 50) <1, p > .54”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 6.67reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .013

    “F(1, 50)= 6.67, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 16.91reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 50)=16.91, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 20.02reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 50)=20.02, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 4.49reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .039

    “F(1, 50)=4.49, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 28.26reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 50)=28.26, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 50) = 2.26reported p > .13 · recomputed p = .139

    “F(1, 50)=2.26, p > .13”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 4.79reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .033

    “F(1, 49)=4.79, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) < 1reported p > .43 · recomputed p = .322

    “F(1, 49) <1, p > .43”

  • Consistentt(18) = 3.19reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .005

    “t(18)=3.19, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(18) = 2.64reported p < .017 · recomputed p = .017

    “t(18)=2.64, p < .017”

  • Consistentt(18) = 0.86reported p > .4 · recomputed p = .401

    “t(18)=0.86, p > .40”

  • Consistentt(18) = -0.23reported p > .81 · recomputed p = .821

    “t(18)=−0.23, p > .81”

  • Consistentt(18) = -0.17reported p > .85 · recomputed p = .867

    “t(18)=−0.17, p > .85”

35 of 35

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Morein-Zamir, S., Papmeyer, M., Gillan, C. M., Crockett, M. J., Fineberg, N. A., Sahakian, B. J., & Robbins, T. W.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2012-05-14
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
391-400
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
DOI
10.1017/s0033291712001018
PMC
PMC3544546
OpenAlex
W2129470571
Semantic Scholar
5c60c92e1ef3ceec8bf83813c7a8c793c26c6248
Cited by
43
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5
FWCI
5.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (089589/Z/09/Z, 089589, G00001354, 093875)
  • Cambridge Trust
  • Gates Cambridge Trust
  • Medical Research Council (G00001354, 089589/Z/09/Z)
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, response inhibition, punishment, reward, go/no-go task, cognitive control, symptom severity, commission errors
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Psychomotor Performance, Punishment, Reaction Time, Reward, Severity of Illness Index, Case-Control Studies, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Self Report

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-03.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-03.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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