MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Brain-Behavior Relations During Motor Processing in Chronic Tic and Habit Disorder

2005· article· en· W2001706985 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive and Behavioral Neurology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsElectrophysiologyPsychologyHabitTic disorderNeuroscienceNeurological disorderAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineCentral nervous system diseasePsychotherapistTics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study examined electrophysiological indices of preparation (readiness potential, RP) and execution (movement-associated potential, MAP) during automated and controlled reaction time (RT) in 13 chronic tic disorder, 17 habit disorder, and 14 control participants. BACKGROUND: Both tic and habit disorders are hypothesized to involve states of heightened activation, which could impede initiation and the control of complex motor actions. METHOD: The electrophysiological signal was recorded from 4 electrodes (Fz, C3, C4, Pz) during a fixed 4-second foreperiod reaction time task. RESULTS: During automated responses, controls showed a shorter RP peak onset, and during controlled responses a longer MAP peak onset, compared with both clinical groups. The controls were the only group who showed a consistent linear relationship between RP and RT. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic tic as well as habit disorder may not modulate cortical activation optimally in planning and executing both automated and controlled responses.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.305 · 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