MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011430720 · doi:10.1177/1087054713513638

Response Inhibition in Tic Disorders

2013· article· en· W2011430720 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Thibeault, Martin Lemay, Sylvain Chouinard, Paul Lespérance, Guy A. Rouleau, François Richer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTourette syndromeResponse inhibitionTicsTask (project management)Tic disorderDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyCognitive psychologyCognitionPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Tic disorders such as Gilles-de-la-Tourette syndrome (TS) are associated with difficulties in withholding movements and sometimes inappropriate actions. The present study examined whether these disorders lead to a specific difficulty in withholding preprogrammed voluntary movements irrespective of decisions on whether or not to move. METHOD: Children with TS with or without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and controls performed a fast-paced simple reaction time task involving responses to a target in a rapid letter stream (9 letters/s, average foreperiod 332 ms) with feedback on response speed. RESULTS: The ADHD group showed more premature responses and more variable response time than other groups, whether the timing of the target was predictable or not. CONCLUSION: The data indicate that in tic disorders, the presence of ADHD is associated with difficulties in waiting to initiate preprogrammed movements independently of response selection or response timing difficulties.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207