↓ Skip to main content

From Thought to Action: How the Interplay Between Neuroscience and Phenomenology Changed Our Understanding of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
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
From Thought to Action: How the Interplay Between Neuroscience and Phenomenology Changed Our Understanding of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01798
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Bernardo Barahona-Corrêa, Marta Camacho, Pedro Castro-Rodrigues, Rui Costa, Albino J. Oliveira-Maia

Abstract

The understanding of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has evolved with the knowledge of behavior, the brain, and their relationship. Modern views of OCD as a neuropsychiatric disorder originated from early lesion studies, with more recent models incorporating detailed neuropsychological findings, such as perseveration in set-shifting tasks, and findings of altered brain structure and function, namely of orbitofrontal corticostriatal circuits and their limbic connections. Interestingly, as neurobiological models of OCD evolved from cortical and cognitive to sub-cortical and behavioral, the focus of OCD phenomenology also moved from thought control and contents to new concepts rooted in animal models of action control. Most recently, the proposed analogy between habitual action control and compulsive behavior has led to the hypothesis that individuals suffering from OCD may be predisposed to rely excessively on habitual rather than on goal-directed behavioral strategies. Alternatively, compulsions have been proposed to result either from hyper-valuation of certain actions and/or their outcomes, or from excessive uncertainty in the monitoring of action performance, both leading to perseveration in prepotent actions such as washing or checking. In short, the last decades have witnessed a formidable renovation in the pathophysiology, phenomenology, and even semantics, of OCD. Nevertheless, such progress is challenged by several caveats, not least psychopathological oversimplification and overgeneralization of animal to human extrapolations. Here we present an historical overview of the understanding of OCD, highlighting converging studies and trends in neuroscience, psychiatry and neuropsychology, and how they influenced current perspectives on the nosology and phenomenology of this disorder.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 108 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Master 17 15%
Other 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 22 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 24%
Neuroscience 23 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 26 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,830,129
of 23,530,272 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,644
of 31,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,656
of 389,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#115
of 456 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,530,272 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 389,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 456 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.