Abnormally Enhanced Midfrontal Theta-Band Activity During Response Monitoring in Youth with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Response monitoring, as reflected in the electroencephalogram (EEG) recording after commission of errors, has been consistently shown to be abnormally enhanced in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). This has been traditionally quantified as error-related negativity (ERN) and may reflect abnormal neurophysiological mechanisms underlying OCD. However, the ERN reflects the increase in phase-locked activities, particularly in the theta-band (4-8 Hz), and does not reflect non-phase-locked activities. To more broadly interrogate midfrontal theta-band activity in a brain region essential for complex cognition, this study investigated theta-band abnormalities during response monitoring in OCD participants for a better understanding of the mechanism underlying the ERN. Methods: EEG data were recorded from 99 participants with pediatric OCD and 99 sex- and age-matched healthy control (HC) participants while they completed the arrow flanker task. Effects of Group (OCD, HC) and Response type (Error, Correct) on post-response theta-band total power and inter-trial phase coherence (ITPC) were examined using mixed analysis of covariance and Bayesian analyses controlling for sex and accuracy. Results: Theta-band total power was larger on Error than Correct trials and larger in OCD than HC participants, but there was no effect of response type between groups. Theta-band ITPC was larger on Error than Correct trials, but there were no group difference nor response type difference between groups. Correlations of theta-band total power and ITPC with clinical measures were overall small. Conclusions: Abnormally enhanced midfrontal theta-band total power, but not ITPC, may reflect ineffective heightened response monitoring or compensatory activity in pediatric OCD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".