Impaired inhibition of prepotent motor actions in patients with Tourette syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence that tic behaviour in individuals with Tourette syndrome reflects difficulties inhibiting prepotent motor actions is mixed. Response conflict tasks produce sensitive measures of response interference from prepotent motor impulses and the proficiency of inhibiting these impulses as an act of cognitive control. We tested the hypothesis that individuals with Tourette syndrome show a deficit in inhibiting prepotent motor actions. METHODS: Healthy controls and older adolescents/adults with persistent Tourette syndrome without a history of obsessive-compulsive disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and presenting with stable mood functioning (i.e., no history of well-treated anxiety or depression) participated in this study. They performed a Simon task that induced conflict between prepotent actions and goal-directed actions. A novel theoretical framework distinguished group differences in acting impulsively (i.e., fast motor errors) from the proficiency of inhibiting interference by prepotent actions (i.e., slope of interference reduction). RESULTS: We included 27 controls and 28 individuals with Tourette syndrome in our study. Both groups showed similar susceptibility to making fast, impulsive motor errors (Tourette syndrome 26% v. control 23%; p = 0.10). The slope (m) reduction of the interference effect was significantly less pronounced among participants with Tourette syndrome than controls (Tourette syndrome: m = -0.07 v. control: m = -0.23; p = 0.022), consistent with deficient inhibitory control over prepotent actions in Tourette syndrome. LIMITATIONS: This study does not address directly the role of psychiatric comorbidities and medication effects on inhibitory control over impulsive actions in individuals with Tourette syndrome. CONCLUSION: The results offer empirical evidence for deficient inhibitory control over prepotent motor actions in individuals with persistent Tourette syndrome with minimal to absent psychiatric comorbidities. These findings also suggest that the frontal-basal ganglia circuits involved in suppressing unwanted motor actions may underlie deficient inhibitory control abilities in individuals with Tourette syndrome.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".