IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1007634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Doubting what you already know: Uncertainty regarding state transitions is associated with obsessive compulsive symptoms

Author

Listed:
  • Isaac Fradkin
  • Casimir Ludwig
  • Eran Eldar
  • Jonathan D Huppert

Abstract

Obsessive compulsive (OC) symptoms involve excessive information gathering (e.g., checking, reassurance-seeking), and uncertainty about possible, often catastrophic, future events. Here we propose that these phenomena are the result of excessive uncertainty regarding state transitions (transition uncertainty): a computational impairment in Bayesian inference leading to a reduced ability to use the past to predict the present and future, and to oversensitivity to feedback (i.e. prediction errors). Using a computational model of Bayesian learning under uncertainty in a reversal learning task, we investigate the relationship between OC symptoms and transition uncertainty. Individuals high and low in OC symptoms performed a task in which they had to detect shifts (i.e. transitions) in cue-outcome contingencies. Modeling subjects’ choices was used to estimate each individual participant’s transition uncertainty and associated responses to feedback. We examined both an optimal observer model and an approximate Bayesian model in which participants were assumed to attend (and learn about) only one of several cues on each trial. Results suggested the participants were more likely to distribute attention across cues, in accordance with the optimal observer model. As hypothesized, participants with higher OC symptoms exhibited increased transition uncertainty, as well as a pattern of behavior potentially indicative of a difficulty in relying on learned contingencies, with no evidence for perseverative behavior. Increased transition uncertainty compromised these individuals' ability to predict ensuing feedback, rendering them more surprised by expected outcomes. However, no evidence for excessive belief updating was found. These results highlight a potential computational basis for OC symptoms and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). The fact the OC symptoms predicted a decreased reliance on the past rather than perseveration challenges preconceptions of OCD as a disorder of inflexibility. Our results have implications for the understanding of the neurocognitive processes leading to excessive uncertainty and distrust of past experiences in OCD.Author summary: Obsessive compulsive (OC) symptoms involve excessive information gathering (e.g., checking, reassurance seeking), and excessive uncertainty about possible future events. Normally, people can use prior experience to predict present and future events. Here we suggest that OC symptoms can be traced back to an impairment in this prediction mechanism. In Bayesian models of learning and decision making the relative weight given to prior experience depends on the estimation of uncertainty. Particularly, when one believes that past states cannot predict the future with certainty, the optimal behavior is to assign a higher weight to current feedback at the expense of prior experience. We examined this mechanism, using a task that required participants to learn cue-outcome contingencies from feedback, while considering the possibility that occasional changes in the contingencies render past experience irrelevant. A computational analysis of participants' behavior showed that participants with higher OC symptoms indeed assigned lower weight to prior experience, leading to over-exploratory behavior. These results have implications for the understanding of the neurocognitive processes leading to excessive uncertainty and distrust of past experiences in obsessive compulsive disorder.

Suggested Citation

  • Isaac Fradkin & Casimir Ludwig & Eran Eldar & Jonathan D Huppert, 2020. "Doubting what you already know: Uncertainty regarding state transitions is associated with obsessive compulsive symptoms," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-26, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007634
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007634
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007634
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007634&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007634?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Bennett & Stefan Bode & Maja Brydevall & Hayley Warren & Carsten Murawski, 2016. "Intrinsic Valuation of Information in Decision Making under Uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rommeswinkel, Hendrik & Chang, Hung-Chi & Hsu, Wen-Tai, 2023. "Preference for Knowledge," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    2. Sebastian P. H. Speer & Laetitia Mwilambwe-Tshilobo & Lily Tsoi & Shannon M. Burns & Emily B. Falk & Diana I. Tamir, 2024. "Hyperscanning shows friends explore and strangers converge in conversation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Haoyang Lu & Li Yi & Hang Zhang, 2019. "Autistic traits influence the strategic diversity of information sampling: Insights from two-stage decision models," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-29, December.
    4. Lane, Tom, 2022. "Intrinsic preferences for unhappy news," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 119-130.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007634. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.