Habit Learning in OCD: Preliminary Data from a Spanish Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Instrumental learning involves goal-directed and habitual systems. The Slips-of-Action Task (SOAT) is extensively used to measure habit tendencies and the likelihood of making erroneous responses for devalued outcomes. The SOAT provides a Devaluation Sensitivity Index (DSI), a measure of the balance between relative goal-directed and habitual learning. Individuals with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) often engage in repetitive actions, suggesting a potential deficit in goal-directed control and an increased reliance on habitual learning. Previous literature has shown that medicated OCD adults performed worse on the SOAT task than healthy controls. Objectives To compare habit learning performance in an unmedicated sample: - Goal 1: Between OCD and Healthy Controls (HC) - Goal 2: Across four groups: adult OCD, adult HC, children OCD, and children HC Methods Participants: Eighty-three participants (44 OCD patients and 38 healthy controls) completed the study with usable task data. The 44 OCD patients comprised 17 adults (mean age: 26.76 years, SD: 8.61 years) and 27 children/adolescents (mean age: 12.84 years, SD: 2.59 years). The 38 healthy controls included 17 adults (mean age: 30 years, SD: 7.49 years) and 21 children/adolescents (mean age: 14.1 years, SD: 2.19 years). All participants were unmedicated. Measures: Participants completed an adapted version of the “Fabulous Fruit Game”, which included an instrumental training phase to learn Stimulus-Response-Outcomes (S-R-O) associations and a SOAT to assess the strength of learned S-R-O associations. DSI was calculated by subtracting the percentage of responses made toward devalued outcomes from the percentage of responses made toward still valuable outcomes. Behavioral Analyses: Student’s t-test comparing individuals with OCD to HC and a ONEWAY ANOVA to examine group differences across multiple categories. Results Goal 1: DSI comparison between individuals with OCD and HC revealed a significant difference, with HC demonstrating superior performance (t (60.9) = 2.60, p = .012, Cohen’s d = .546). Goal 2: The overall DSI comparison across adult OCD, adult HC, children OCD, and children HC showed a non-significant difference (F(3) = 3.407, p = 0.22). However, post hoc analysis revealed significant differences between Adult HC and Youth OCD (I-J Scheffe = 28.82, p = .033), indicating superior performance in adult HC. Conclusions This study highlights altered Habit Learning in unmedicated OCD individuals, supported by significant DSI differences compared to HC. Age-related distinctions were observed, emphasizing the need for age-sensitive interventions in understanding and addressing habit-related challenges in OCD. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".