Association of Environmental Uncertainty With Altered Decision-making and Learning Mechanisms in Youths With Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Adults with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) display perseverative behavior in stable environments but exhibit vacillating choice when payoffs are uncertain. These findings may be associated with intolerance of uncertainty and compulsive behaviors; however, little is known about the mechanisms underlying learning and decision-making in youths with OCD because research into this population has been limited. OBJECTIVE To investigate cognitive mechanisms associated with decision-making in youths withOCD by using executive functioning tasks and computational modeling. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this cross-sectional study, 50 youths with OCD (patients) and 53 healthy participants (controls) completed a probabilistic reversal learning (PRL) task between January 2014 and March 2020. A separate sample of 27 patients and 46 controls completed the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST) between January 2018 and November 2020. The study took place at the University of Cambridge in the UK. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Decision-making mechanisms were studied by fitting hierarchical bayesian reinforcement learning models to the 2 data sets and comparing model parameters between participant groups. Model parameters included reward and punishment learning rates (feedback sensitivity), reinforcement sensitivity and decision consistency (exploitation), and stickiness (perseveration). Associations of receipt of serotonergic medication with performance were assessed. RESULTS In total, 50 patients (29 female patients [58%]; median age, 16.6 years [IQR, 15.3-18.0 years]) and 53 controls (30 female participants [57%]; median age, 16.4 years [IQR, 14.8-18.0 years]) completed the PRL task. A total of 27 patients (18 female patients [67%]; median age, 16.1 years [IQR, 15.2-17.2 years]) and 46 controls (28 female participants [61%]; median age, 17.2 [IQR, 16.3-17.6 years]) completed the WCST. During the reversal phase of the PRL task, patients made fewer correct responses (mean [SD] proportion: 0.83 [0.16] for controls and 0.61 [0.31] for patients; 95% CI, −1.31 to −0.64) and switched choices more often following false-negative feedback (mean [SD] proportion: 0.09 [0.16] for controls vs 0.27 [0.34] for patients; 95% CI, 0.60-1.26) and true-positive feedback (mean [SD] proportion: 0.93 [0.17] for controls vs 0.73 [0.34] for patients; 95% CI, −2.17 to −1.31). Computational modeling revealed that patients displayed enhanced reward learning rates (mean difference [MD], 0.21; 95% highest density interval [HDI], 0.04-0.38) but decreased punishment learning rates (MD, −0.29; 95% HDI, −0.39 to −0.18), reinforcement sensitivity (MD, −4.91; 95% HDI, −9.38 to −1.12), and stickiness (MD, −0.35; 95% HDI, −0.57 to −0.11) compared with controls. There were no group differences on standard WCST measures and computational model parameters. However, patients who received serotonergic medication showed slower response times (mean [SD], 1420.49 [279.71] milliseconds for controls, 1471.42 [212.81] milliseconds for (continued) Key Points Questio...

Cognitive Rigidity, Habitual Tendencies, and Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms: Individual Differences and Compensatory Interactions

“…This could have important implications in the development of early interventions for OCD. Notably, adolescents with OCD do not show deficits in performance on the Wisconsin Card Sort Test, an externally-cued measure of cognitive flexibility ( 50 ), and as such, an important future direction would be to administer a self-directed measure of cognitive flexibility, such as the AUT, in this age group. In order to explore whether the present findings are consistent across cultural contexts, cross-cultural replication is imperative.…”

Chronic escitalopram in healthy volunteers has specific effects on reinforcement sensitivity: a double-blind, placebo-controlled semi-randomised study

“…Finally, for the Probabilistic Reversal Learning Task, we used an innovative computational modelling approach, by fitting families of hierarchical Bayesian reinforcement learning models to trial-by-trial task data [ 35 , 36 ]. Model comparison was conducted between four models using a bridge-sampling estimate of the marginal likelihood using the bridgesampling [ 37 ] function in R. Model 1 included a reward learning rate, punishment learning rate and reinforcement sensitivity; Model 2 included a reward learning rate, punishment learning rate, reinforcement sensitivity and stimulus stickiness, Model 3 included a combined learning rate, reinforcement sensitivity and stimulus stickiness; and Model 4 used an experience weighted approach [ 38 ] which includes learning rate, inverse temperature and experience weight.…”

Neurobehavioral precursors of compulsive cocaine-seeking in dual fronto-striatal circuits

“…Individual differences in approach responses to conditioned stimuli (e.g., sign-or goal-tracking trait) were assessed in an autoshaping task (3, 20) . Impulsivity was measured in the 5-Choice Serial reaction Time task (5-CSRTT) (31); reinforcement learning and stickiness (32) were measured in a spatial reversal learning task (15) , while locomotor reactivity to novelty was assessed using four open fields and a video tracking system (ViewPoint Behavior Technology®, Lyon, France) (3). Upon completion of behavioral phenotyping, at PND 212 -244, rats were MRI scanned prior to intravenous catheter surgery, after which they were singly housed for the duration of the experiment.…”