4.6 Article

Accumulation of evidence during decision making in OCD patients

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHIATRY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.980905

关键词

obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD); decision-making; evidence accumulation; drift diffusion model; probabilistic reasoning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared OCD patients with a control group and found that OCD patients process evidence differently during decision-making. While their decision-making accuracy was similar to the control group, OCD patients took longer to accumulate evidence, especially in difficult trials with low evidence strength. Model analysis showed that the OCD group was less sensitive to evidence.
Decision-making often entails the accumulation of evidence. Previous studies suggested that people with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) process decision-making differently from healthy controls. Both their compulsive behavior and obsessive thoughts may influence the evidence accumulation process, yet the previous studies disagreed on the reason. To address this question, we employed a probabilistic reasoning task in which subjects made two alternative forced choices by viewing a series of visual stimuli. These stimuli carried probabilistic information toward the choices. While the OCD patients achieved similar accuracy to the control, they took longer time and accumulated more evidence, especially in difficult trials in which the evidence strength was low. We further modeled the subjects' decision making as a leaky drifting diffusion process toward two collapsing bounds. The control group showed a higher drifting rate than the OCD group, indicating that the OCD group was less sensitive to evidence. Together, these results demonstrated that the OCD patients were less efficient than the control at transforming sensory information into evidence. However, their evidence accumulation was comparable to the healthy control, and they compensated for their decision-making accuracy with longer reaction times.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据