↓ Skip to main content

Impaired trial-by-trial adjustment of cognitive control in obsessive compulsive disorder improves after deep repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neuroscience, October 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Impaired trial-by-trial adjustment of cognitive control in obsessive compulsive disorder improves after deep repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation
Published in
BMC Neuroscience, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12868-015-0205-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mandana Modirrousta, Benjamin P. Meek, Jitender Sareen, Murray W. Enns

Abstract

Adaptive decision making requires the adjustment of behaviour following an error. Some theories suggest that repetitive thoughts and behaviours in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) are driven by malfunctioning error monitoring. This malfunction may relate to demonstrated hyperactivity in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), including the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. In this study, we measured aspects of error monitoring in individuals with OCD and administered deep low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in an attempt to modulate error monitoring capacity. For this pilot study, ten OCD patients and 10 aged-matched healthy controls completed modified versions of the Eriksen Flanker task before and after one session of deep 1 Hz rTMS (1200 pulses) over the mPFC (Brodmann areas 24 and 32). OCD patients received nine additional sessions of daily rTMS to assess their clinical response. Flanker tasks were repeated with patients post-treatment. Overall error rates were higher for patients compared to controls. When subjects were asked to report their errors, OCD patients were able to report fewer of their errors than the control group. In contrast to controls, patients did not demonstrate a normal post-error slowing (PES) phenomenon. This abnormal PES was mainly driven by abnormally slow response times (RTs) following correct responses rather than a failure to slow down after errors. Patients' symptoms and slowed RTs following correct responses improved after ten sessions of rTMS. Certain aspects of error monitoring, namely conscious error report and post error slowing, are impaired in OCD. These impairments can at least be partly corrected by 1 Hz deep rTMS over the mPFC. Simultaneous improvement of OCD symptoms by this method might suggest a correlation between error monitoring impairment and OCD pathophysiology. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02541812; 09/02/2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 125 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 22%
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 34 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 13%
Neuroscience 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 42 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,248,332
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neuroscience
#64
of 1,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,466
of 278,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neuroscience
#2
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,245 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 278,739 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.