↓ Skip to main content

Imbalance in habitual versus goal directed neural systems during symptom provocation in obsessive-compulsive disorder

Overview of attention for article published in Brain, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Imbalance in habitual versus goal directed neural systems during symptom provocation in obsessive-compulsive disorder
Published in
Brain, January 2015
DOI 10.1093/brain/awu379
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paula Banca, Valerie Voon, Martin D Vestergaard, Gregor Philipiak, Inês Almeida, Fernando Pocinho, João Relvas, Miguel Castelo-Branco

Abstract

Intrusive thoughts and compulsive urges to perform stereotyped behaviours are typical symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Emerging evidence suggests a cognitive bias towards habit formation at the expense of goal-directed performance in obsessive-compulsive disorder. In this study, we test this hypothesis using a novel individualized ecologically valid symptom provocation design: a live provocation functional magnetic resonance imaging paradigm with synchronous video-recording of behavioural avoidance responses. By pairing symptom provocation with online avoidance responses on a trial-by-trial basis, we sought to investigate the neural mechanisms leading to the compulsive avoidance response. In keeping with the model of habit formation in obsessive-compulsive disorder, we hypothesized that this disorder would be associated with lower activity in regions implicated in goal-directed behaviours and higher activity in regions implicated in habitual behaviours. Fifteen patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder and 15 healthy control volunteers participated in this functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Online stimuli were individually tailored to achieve effective symptom provocation at neutral, intermediate and strong intensity levels. During the symptom provocation block, the participant could choose to reject or terminate the provoking stimuli resulting in cessation of the symptom provocation. We thus separately analysed the neural correlates of symptom provocation, the urge to avoid, rejection and relief. Strongly symptom-provoking conditions evoked a dichotomous pattern of deactivation/activation in patients, which was not observed either in control conditions or in healthy subjects: a deactivation of caudate-prefrontal circuits accompanied by hyperactivation of subthalamic nucleus/putaminal regions. This finding suggests a dissociation between regions engaged in goal-directed and habitual behaviours. The putaminal hyperactivity during patients' symptom provocation preceded subsequent deactivation during avoidance and relief events, indicating a pivotal role of putamen in regulation of behaviour and habit formation in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Effective connectivity analysis identified the ventromedial prefrontal cortex/orbitofrontal cortex as the main structure in this circuitry involved in the modulation of compulsivity in obsessive-compulsive disorder. These findings suggest an imbalance in circuitry underlying habitual and goal-directed action control, which may represent a fundamental mechanism underlying compulsivity in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Our results complement current models of symptom generation in obsessive-compulsive disorder and may enable the development of future therapeutic approaches that aim to alleviate this imbalance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 227 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 15%
Student > Master 34 15%
Student > Bachelor 28 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 40 17%
Unknown 45 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 68 29%
Neuroscience 36 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 6%
Computer Science 3 1%
Other 16 7%
Unknown 73 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2015.
All research outputs
#8,261,140
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Brain
#5,025
of 7,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,839
of 358,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain
#64
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 358,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.