Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:59:27.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the Parsing of Dynamic Action in Checking Proneness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2015

Sanaâ Belayachi  and
Martial Van der Linden
Sanaâ Belayachi*
Affiliation:
Cognitive Psychopathology and Neuropsychology Unit, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Cognitive Neuroscience and Cognitive Psychopathology Unit, University of Liège, Liège, Wallonia, Belgium
Martial Van der Linden
Affiliation:
Cognitive Psychopathology and Neuropsychology Unit, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Cognitive Neuroscience and Cognitive Psychopathology Unit, University of Liège, Liège, Wallonia, Belgium
*
Address for correspondence: Sanaâ Belayachi, Cognitive Psychopathology and Neuropsychology Unit, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Impaired action processing may be a key feature of the obsessive-compulsive checking phenomenon, although the mechanism underlying the impairment remains to be explored. We examined the ability to parse a continuous flow of movements and perceptual changes into meaningful segments of action — a key component of action processing — in checking proneness. Participants (N = 65) completed a measure of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and, while viewing four videotaped movies, were requested to detect the transitions between significant action steps. The main result indicated that Checking — but not the other obsessive-compulsive dimensions — was negatively related, with the size of meaningful units identified. These findings suggest that checking proneness may be specifically connected with difficulties in processing actions on the basis of abstract features such as goal-related information. This could explain why people with checking symptoms find it more difficult to determine whether an intended goal has actually been achieved.

Keywords

obsessive-compulsive disordercheckingaction processingaction parsingevent segmentation theory
Type
Standard Papers
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 93 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, P.D. (1999). Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Belayachi, S., & Van der Linden, M. (2009). Level of agency in sub-clinical checking. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 293–299.Google Scholar
Boyer, P., & Liénard, P. (2006). Precaution systems and ritualized behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 635–641.Google Scholar
Bruchon-Schweitzer, M., & Paulhan, I. (1993). Le manuel du STAI-Y de CD Spielberger, adaptation française. Paris: ECPA.Google Scholar
Derryberry, D., & Reed, M.A. (1998). Anxiety and attentional focusing: Trait, state and hemispheric influences. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 745–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foa, E.B., Huppert, J.D., Leiberg, S., Langner, R., Kichic, R., Hajcak, G., & Salkovskis, P.M. (2002). The Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory: Development and validation of a short version. Psychological Assessment, 14, 485–496.Google Scholar
Fox, J. (1991). Regression diagnostics: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Harkin, B., & Kessler, K. (2011). The role of working memory in compulsive checking and OCD: A systematic classification of 58 experimental findings. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1004–1021.Google Scholar
Huppert, J.D., Walther, M.R., Hajcak, G., Yadin, E., Foa, E.B., Simpson, H.B., & Liebowitz, M.R. (2007). The OCI-R: Validation of the subscales in a clinical sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 394–406.Google Scholar
Jung, W.H., Gu, B.M., Kang, D.H., Park, J.Y., Yoo, S.Y., Choi, C.H., . . . Kwon, J.S. (2009). BOLD response during visual perception of biological motion in obsessive-compulsive disorder. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 259, 46–54.Google Scholar
Kim, J., Blake, R., Park, S., Shin, Y.W., Kang, D.H., & Kwon, J.S. (2008). Selective impairment in visual perception of biological motion in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 25, e15–e25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurby, C.A., & Zacks, J.M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 72–79.Google Scholar
Kurby, C.A., & Zacks, J.M. (2011). Age differences in the perception of hierarchical structure in events. Memory & Cognition, 39, 75–91.Google Scholar
Muller, J., & Roberts, J.E. (2005). Memory and attention in obsessive–compulsive disorder: A review. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murayama, K., Nakao, T., Sanematsu, H., Okada, K., Yoshiura, T., Tomita, M., . . . Kanba, S. (2012). Differential neural network of checking versus washing symptoms in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 40, 160–166.Google ScholarPubMed
Newtson, D. (1973). Attribution and the unit of perception of ongoing behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, C.R., Deckersbach, T., Wilhelm, S., Rauch, S.L., Baer, L., Reid, T., & Jenike, M.A. (2000). Strategic processing and episodic memory impairment in obsessive compulsive disorder. Neuropsychology, 14, 141–151.Google Scholar
Speer, N.K., Zacks, J.M., & Reynolds, J.R. (2007). Human brain activity time-locked to narrative event boundaries. Psychological Science, 18, 449–455.Google Scholar
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., & Lushene, R.E. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Ursu, S., Stenger, V.A., Shear, M.K., Jones, M.R., & Carter, C.S. (2003). Overactive action monitoring in obsessive-compulsive disorder: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Psychological Science, 14, 347–353.Google Scholar
Vallacher, R.R., & Wegner, D.M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallacher, R.R., & Wegner, D.M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale — III. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Zacks, J.M. (2004). Using movement and intentions to understand simple events. Cognitive Science, 28, 979–1008.Google Scholar
Zacks, J.M., Kurby, C.A., Eisenberg, M.L., & Haroutunian, N. (2011). Prediction error associated with the perceptual segmentation of naturalistic events. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 4057–4066.Google Scholar
Zacks, J.M., & Sargent, J.Q. (2010). Event perception: A theory and its application to clinical neuroscience. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53, 253–299.Google Scholar
Zacks, J.M., Speer, N.K., Swallow, K.M., & Maley, C.J. (2010). The brain's cutting-room floor: Segmentation of narrative cinema. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zacks, J.M., Speer, N.K., Vettel, J.M., & Jacoby, L.L. (2006). Event understanding and memory in healthy aging and dementia of the Alzheimer type. Psychology and Aging, 21, 466–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zacks, J.M., & Swallow, K.M. (2007). Event segmentation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 80–84.Google Scholar
Zacks, J.M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3–21.Google Scholar
Zermatten, A., Van der Linden, M., Jermann, F., & Ceschi, G. (2006). Validation of a French version of the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory — Revised in a non-clinical sample. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 56, 151–155.Google Scholar