Altered Error Monitoring and Decreased Flanker Task Accuracy in Pediatric Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<title>Abstract</title> The error-related negativity (ERN) and error positivity (Pe) are components of the event-related potential following an error that are potential mechanistic biomarkers of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The study examined the ERN, Pe, flanker task accuracy, and clinical measures in 105 OCD cases and 105 matched healthy controls (HC), ages 8 to 18 years, with 21 cases having a tic disorder history. Higher flanker task accuracy in all participants was associated with an increased ERN amplitude and increased difference between Pe and correct positivity amplitudes (ΔPe). Compared to HC, OCD cases had an increased ERN but <italic>decreased</italic> flanker task accuracy and ΔPe. Those differences were also significant in tic-related and non-tic-related OCD cases compared to HC. A lower ΔPe was associated in OCD cases with an earlier age at OCD symptom onset. The results support the hypothesis that OCD involves defects in an error monitoring system and suggest a reduced ΔPe may compromise error signaling and cause uncertainty about the correctness of a response.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".