The comparison of risky and ambiguity decision making and cool executive functions between patients with obsessive compulsive disorder and healthy controls

Abstract

Background: Executive functioning has been evaluated in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Cool and hot executive functioning discrimination provided a different way of conceptualising executive functions. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare ambiguity and risky decision-making and cool executive functions in an OCD and a healthy control group. The relationship between decision-making and cool executive functioning was investigated. Methods: Sixty-two OCD patients and 48 healthy control participants were compared. Decision-making was measured using the Iowa Gambling Task. The cool executive functioning was assessed using the Stroop Test and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST). Results: The OCD group completed the WCST and the Stroop Test statistically significantly with a lower score than that of the control group. The OCD group had impaired response inhibition and set-shifting that indicate impaired cool executive functioning. In contrast to a lack of a statistically significant difference, the risky decision-making performance was worse in the OCD group than in the healthy control group and in the unmedicated OCD patients than in the medicated OCD patients. Discussion: The OCD patients had a poorer performance in risky decision-making and cool executive functioning. There was a link between risky decision-making performance and impaired cool executive functions.

The neurodevelopment of executive function skills: Implications for academic achievement gaps.

“…Atypical development of hot and/or cool EF skills is implicated in a wide range of clinical conditions, including attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; e.g., Petrovic & Castellanos, 2016); autism spectrum disorder (e.g., Zimmerman, Ownsworth, O’Donovan, Roberts, & Gullo, 2016); antisocial personality disorder (e.g., De Brito, Viding, Kumari, Blackwood, & Hodgins, 2013); conduct disorder (CD; e.g., Rubia, 2011); developmental coordination disorder (e.g., Rahimi-Golkhandan, Steenbergen, Piek, Caeyenberghs, & Wilson, 2016); fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (e.g., Fuglestad et al, 2015; Kully-Martens, Treit, Pei, & Rasmussen, 2013); learning disabilities (e.g., Toll, Van der Ven, Kroesbergen, & Van Luit, 2011); obsessive–compulsive disorder (e.g., Güngör et al, 2018); sequelae of prematurity (e.g., Hodel, Brumbaugh, Morris, & Thomas, 2016); psychotic symptoms in at-risk youth (e.g., MacKenzie et al, 2017); and the consequences of traumatic brain injury (e.g., Fonseca et al, 2012), among others. The hot-cool EF dimension has proven useful in characterizing both comorbidity across diagnostic categories and heterogeneity within them; for example, differentiating ADHD from highly comorbid disruptive behavior disorders, such as oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and CD (e.g., Rubia, 2011), and supporting the proposal that there are two neurodevelopmental pathways leading to ADHD, one involving difficulties in cool EF and one involving difficulties in hot EF and motivation (e.g., Petrovic & Castellanos, 2016; Sonuga-Barke, 2003).…”

No relations between executive functions and dimensional models of psychopathology or is time the missing link?

“…This differentiation of EF is expected to be very relevant in the study of relations of neuropsychological and psychopathological functioning since human beings do function differently over time and are very much influenced by their emotions. Consideration of hot and cool EF has helped characterize a wide range of clinical conditions [ 48 ] including ADHD [ 33 , 90 ], ASD [ 32 ], antisocial personality disorder [ 35 ], conduct disorder [ 34 ], developmental coordination disorder [ 91 ], fetal alcohol syndrome disorders [ 39 ], OCD [ 92 ], sequelae of prematurity [ 93 ], psychotic symptoms in at-risk youth [ 30 ], and the consequences of traumatic brain injury [ 13 ]. However, also failures to find differences between hot and cool EF across clinical conditions have been reported [ 94 ].…”

“…Consideration of hot and cool EF has helped characterize a wide range of clinical conditions [48] including ADHD [33,90], ASD [32], antisocial personality disorder [35], conduct disorder [34], developmental coordination disorder [91], fetal alcohol syndrome disorders [39], OCD [92], sequelae of prematurity [93], psychotic symptoms in at-risk youth [30], and the consequences of traumatic brain injury [13]. However, also failures to find differences between hot and cool EF across clinical conditions have been reported [94].…”

The role of inhibition capacities in the Iowa gambling test performance in young tattooed women

“…Findings from previous studies on this issue in non-tattooed samples were inconsistent. The mechanisms of risky behavior may be clarified by analysis of the interactions between decision making and inhibition abilities [19]. However, research on the association between decision making and inhibition abilities is inconsistent.…”