Cognitive-behaviour therapy and skilled motor performance in adults with chronic tic disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first aim of the present study was to compare performance of people with tic disorders (TD) and controls on executive function and a range of skilled motor tests requiring complex performance, guided movements, hand co-ordination, and fine control of steadiness. The second aim was to investigate the effect of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) on motor performance. A total of 55 patients with TD were recruited at baseline from participants in a behavioural management programme. A comparison group of 55 patients suffering from a variety of habit disorders (HD) involving complex manual movements, were matched on age and level of education to 34 non-psychiatric controls. Participants were evaluated pre- and post-treatment and post-waitlist with a neuropsychological evaluation focusing on executive function (Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, WCST) and skilled motor performance (Purdue Pegboard, Hole Steadiness Test, and the Groove Test). Results revealed WCST scores in the normal range, while motor performance differed significantly on the Purdue Pegboard Tests in both TD and HD as compared to the control group. Cognitive-behavioural treatment selectively improved motor performance in both clinical groups compared to waitlist control, and this improvement related to clinical outcome measures.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".