Ahmari Susanne E, Eich Teal, Cebenoyan Deniz, Smith Edward E, Blair Simpson H
Translational Neuroscience Program, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Division of Cognitive Neuroscience, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, United States; Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2014 Nov;115:10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2014.06.011. Epub 2014 Jun 30.
It has been challenging to identify core neurocognitive deficits that are consistent across multiple studies in patients with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). In turn, this leads to difficulty in translating findings from human studies into animal models to dissect pathophysiology. In this article, we use primary data from a working memory task in OCD patients to illustrate this issue. Working memory deficiencies have been proposed as an explanatory model for the evolution of checking compulsions in a subset of OCD patients. However, findings have been mixed due to variability in task design, examination of spatial vs. verbal working memory, and heterogeneity in patient populations. Two major questions therefore remain: first, do OCD patients have disturbances in working memory? Second, if there are working memory deficits in OCD, do they cause checking compulsions? In order to investigate these questions, we tested 19 unmedicated OCD patients and 23 matched healthy controls using a verbal working memory task that has increased difficulty/task-load compared to classic digit-span tasks. OCD patients did not significantly differ in their performance on this task compared to healthy controls, regardless of the outcome measure used (i.e. reaction time or accuracy). Exploratory analyses suggest that a subset of patients with predominant doubt/checking symptoms may have decreased memory confidence despite normal performance on trials with the highest working memory load. These results suggest that other etiologic factors for checking compulsions should be considered. In addition, they serve as a touchstone for discussion, and therefore help us to generate a roadmap for increasing consensus in the assessment of neurocognitive function in psychiatric disorders.
在强迫症(OCD)患者中,识别出在多项研究中一致的核心神经认知缺陷一直具有挑战性。相应地,这导致难以将人体研究的结果转化为动物模型以剖析病理生理学。在本文中,我们使用强迫症患者工作记忆任务的原始数据来说明这个问题。工作记忆缺陷已被提出作为一部分强迫症患者检查强迫行为演变的一种解释模型。然而,由于任务设计的变异性、对空间与言语工作记忆的检查以及患者群体的异质性,研究结果不一。因此,仍然存在两个主要问题:第一,强迫症患者是否存在工作记忆障碍?第二,如果强迫症患者存在工作记忆缺陷,这些缺陷会导致检查强迫行为吗?为了研究这些问题,我们使用了一项言语工作记忆任务对19名未服药的强迫症患者和23名匹配的健康对照进行了测试,该任务与经典数字广度任务相比增加了难度/任务负荷。无论使用何种结果指标(即反应时间或准确性),强迫症患者在这项任务上的表现与健康对照相比均无显著差异。探索性分析表明,一部分以怀疑/检查症状为主的患者,尽管在工作记忆负荷最高的试验中表现正常,但可能记忆信心降低。这些结果表明,应考虑检查强迫行为的其他病因因素。此外,它们作为讨论的试金石,因此有助于我们制定一个路线图,以提高在精神疾病神经认知功能评估方面的共识。