4.7 Article

Executive function in Tourette's syndrome and obsessive-compulsive disorder

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 571-582

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291704003691

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Cognitive performance was compared in the genetically and neurobiologically related disorders of Tourette's syndrome (TS) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), in three domains of executive function: planning, decision-making and inhibitory response control. Method. Twenty TS patients, twenty OCD patients and a group of age- and IQ-matched normal controls completed psychometric and computerized cognitive tests and psychiatric rating scales. The cognitive tests were well-characterized in terms of their sensitivity to other fronto-striatal disorders, and included pattern and spatial recognition memory, attentional set-shifting, and a Go/No-go set-shifting task, planning, and decision-making. Results. Compared to controls, OCD patients showed selective deficits in pattern recognition memory and slower responding in both pattern and spatial recognition, impaired extra-dimensional shifting on the set-shifting test and impaired reversal of response set on the Go/No-go test. In contrast, TS patients were impaired in spatial recognition memory, extra-dimensional set-shifting, and decision-making. Neither group was impaired in planning. Direct comparisons between the TS and OCD groups revealed significantly different greater deficits for recognition memory latency and Go/No-go reversal for the OCD group, and quality of decision-making for the TS group. Conclusions. TS and OCD show both differences (recognition memory, decision-making) and similarities (set-shifting) in selective profiles of cognitive function. Specific set-shifting deficits in the OCD group contrasted with their intact performance on other tests of executive function, such as planning and decision-making, and suggested only limited involvement of frontal lobe dysfunction, possibly consistent with OCD symptomatology.

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

4.7
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