MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990935855 · doi:10.1037/h0100139

Behavioral activity and tic disorder.

2006· article· en· W1990935855 on OpenAlexaff
Kieron O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Behavior Analyst Today · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsHôpital Louis-H Lafontaine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Behavior Analyst TodaySame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207