Manifestation of Incompleteness in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) as Reduced Functionality and Extended Activity beyond Task Completion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study focused on hypotheses regarding the source of incompleteness in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). For this, we had to document the behavioral manifestation of incompleteness in compulsive rituals, predicting that an exaggerated focus on acts that are appropriate for the task will support the hypothesis on heightened responsibility/perfectionism. In contrast, activity past the expected terminal act for the motor task would support the "stop signal deficiency" hypothesis. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We employed video-telemetry to analyze 39 motor OCD rituals and compared each with a similar task performed by a non-OCD individual, in order to objectively and explicitly determine the functional end of the activity. We found that 75% of OCD rituals comprised a "tail," which is a section that follows the functional end of the task that the patients ascribed to their activity. The other 25% tailless rituals comprised a relatively high number and higher rate of repetition of non-functional acts. Thus, in rituals with tail, incompleteness was manifested by the mere presence of the tail whereas in tailless rituals, incompleteness was manifested by the reduced functionality of the task due to an inflated execution and repetition of non-functional acts. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of activity after the functional end ("tail") and the elevated non-functionality in OCD motor rituals support the "lack of stop signal" theories as the underlying mechanism in OCD. Furthermore, the presence and content of the tail might have a therapeutic potential in cognitive-behavior therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".