P.001 Planning & decision-making in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) through the lens of ERP: a comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to investigate the effect of impulsivity on the planning & decision-making of individuals with OCD compared to a control group, focusing on amplitude and latency during the Tower of London (TOL) task. Methods: A sample of a total of 76 (dominantly right-handed & aged between 18-30 yrs) participated. Participants with OCD were assessed with the Y-BOCS & symptom checklist, BIS-11, and the HCs were screened with the GHQ-12. ERP components were measured by using TOL on E-prime 3.0. The amplitude and latency along with the spectral power for each problem-solving task were measured and analyzed. Results: Statistically significant differences were found in the Latency variable in the left frontal area of the brain, indicating distinctive latency patterns in individuals with OCD compared to controls. No statistically significant differences were observed in amplitude or latency for other move sequences. High spectral activity was detected in individuals with OCD for an extended period. Conclusions: Individuals with OCD exhibit higher activity indicative of ambivalence during decision-making which indicates that to overcome impulsive urges, thus they need to put more cognitive effort to maintain the same outcomes. To maintain error-free results obsessive & compulsive behaviors are a necessary evil.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".