MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1990935855 · doi:10.1037/h0100139

Behavioral activity and tic disorder.

2006· article· en· W1990935855 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Behavior Analyst Today · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Établissements canadiensHôpital Louis-H Lafontaine
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Previous approaches to functional assessment of tic and habit disorders have centred largely around environmental contingencies or interceptive sensory processes as positive reinforcers. The current article argues rather that ongoing telic behavioral activity is functionally linked to tic onset and so type of behavioral activity and overall action plan at the time of ticcing should also be assessed. Evidence is presented from past studies in support of a link between tic location and type of activity and the way this activity is appraised. It is further proposed that intervention strategies for reversing tic habits should include a more holistic behavioral restructuring of muscle use rather than just an exclusive focus on developing antagonistic muscle actions as competing responses. Keywords: tic disorder, habit disorders, habit reversal, holistic behavioural restructuring, antagonistic muscle actions ********** BEHAVIORAL TREATMENTS FOR TIC DISORDERS Recent studies have shown that behavior therapy (BT) can be successfully applied to the management of Tourette's syndrome (TS), tic and habit disorders (O'Connor, 2005). The results rival those achieved with medication and given the problems of compliance with medication and the perils of neuroleptic use with children (Peterson & Azrin, 1993), behavioural programs could in theory become the treatment of choice for these disorders. But despite small scale studies showing successful outcome in a range of tic subtypes (Peterson & Azrin, 1992), behavioural treatments are far from being accepted in psychiatry as a mainstream intervention. Clinician consensus strongly favours a neurobiological model of treatment with psycho-education and eclectic supportive counselling as an adjunct (Peterson & Cohen, 1998). A contributing reason for the lack of acceptance by clinicians of behavioural analysis and therapy may be the lack of a convincing model of behavioral processes operating in tic aetiology. BEHAVIORAL PRINCIPLES AND BEHAVIORAL PROCESS IN TICS Whereas most BT methods naturally espouse behavioral principles, the techniques appeal to a number of diverse behavioral mechanisms, some in apparent contradiction to one another. For example, the technique of massed practice which has shown some early success (Feldman & Werry, 1966), attempts to negatively reinforce ticcing through building up reciprocal inhibition, whilst techniques of relaxation emphasize lowering tension rather than increasing it, also with apparent success (Bergin, Waranch, Brown, Carson, & Singer, 1998). Conversely, exposure and response prevention would encourage tolerating the urge to tic without either tensing or relaxing the tic affected muscle group (Verdellen, Keijsers, Cath, & Hoogduin, 2004). Other behavioral intervention strategies have relied more or less exclusively on different aspects of contingency management to control tics. But even here the contingencies vary considerably and can include environmental, social or attentional task demand (Miltenberger, Fuqua, & Woods, 1998). Hence the theoretical considerations driving functional analysis in BT may often be in conflict, and may hamper development of a standard model of managing behavioural processes in tics. Although there is consensus that tics and habit disorders are auto-reinforced, there is disagreement as to the role of negative versus positive automatic reinforcement contingencies. For example, some authors report social reinforcement as a key maintaining factor (Watson & Sterling, 1998) whilst others report lack of attentional state as a precursor (Roane, Piazza, Cercone, & Grados, 2002). So, applying time out to negatively reinforce ticcing within a social reinforcement model may conflict with according additional attention to positively reinforce task engagement as a means of reducing tic frequency. As Miltenberger et al. (1998) have noted, the paucity of systematic behavioural and functional analysis of tic behaviour means that little is known about the function of behaviours treated with BT. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,071
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,314
Écart entre enseignants0,300 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle