Daniel R. Cavagnaro California State University Fullerton Gabriel Aranovich University of California San Francisco and SF VA Medical Center • Psychiatry has relied on a diagnostic system based on presenting signs and symptoms, with the result that “current definitions do not adequately reflect relevant neurobiological and behavioral systems.” (Cuthbert & Insel, 2013) • NIMH RDoC program created to “develop new ways of classifying mental disorders based on behavioral dimensions and neurobiological measures.” (NIMH website) • Use tools from game theory, behavioral economics, and machine learning to “characterize mental dysfunction in terms of aberrant computations” (Montague et al., 2012) • Aims: • Refine diagnostic system • Derive cognitive phenotypes that will structure the search for genomic and neural correlates. • Mental disorders under investigation: • Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) • Hoarding Disorder (HD) • Compare groups in terms of “dimensions” of risk preference, as measured by estimated parameters of Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT) • Risk aversion • Probability weighting (curvature and elevation) • Presence of obsessions and/or compulsions. • Obsessions: recurrent and persistent thoughts, urges, or images that are experienced as intrusive and unwanted. • Compulsions: repetitive behaviors or mental acts that an individual feels driven to perform in response to an obsession or according to rules that must be applied rigidly. • Prominent model of OCD holds that OCD involves excessive risk aversion and intolerance to uncertainty • Experimental results using self-report measures and gambling tasks have been mixed (Morein-Zamir et al. 2014) • “Cognitive theorists have postulated that people who develop OCD overestimate the likelihood and severity of danger…and are unable to tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity that could possibly signal threat.” --Barlow et al. (2002): • Persistent difficulty discarding or parting with possessions, regardless of their actual value. • Perceived need to save items and distress associated with discarding them. • Lawrence et al. (2006) found “Link between hoarding and risky behavior on the Iowa Gambling Task.” OCD did not differ from controls in that study. • “Decision-making has been suggested to be impaired in compulsive hoarding. Hoarding participants may be risk averse, as demonstrated by their avoidance of discarding because of hypothetical future need.” -- Grisham et al. (2010): • “A limited understanding of cognitive factors associated with compulsive hoarding may contribute to the modest treatment outcomes for this disorder.” --Grisham et al. (2010) • Overlap between neural regions associated with risk computation and dysfunction in OCD and HD. (Hsu et al. 2009; Cavedini et al. 2002; Preuschoff et al. 2008; Admon et al., 2007) • Some experts suspect that the literature is off, and that OCD/HD are both actually less risk averse than healthy controls • Three components of the CPT model • Value function • “Classical” notion of risk aversion (e.g., Arrow-Pratt) • Probability weighting function (PWF) • Subjective overweighting or underweighting of probabilities relative to their normative values, capturing differential treatment of uncertainty. • Choice function • Behavioral consistency • E.g., logistic choice rule • All gambles in our experiment will be over the same three possible outcomes: $25, $350, and $1000 • For example: Which do you prefer? Gamble A 0.2 $25 0.4 $350 Gamble B 0.4 $1000 0.1 0.6 0.3 $25 $350 $1000 or • So, without loss of generality, we assume • u($25) = 0 • u($350) = v • where 0<v<1 • u($1000) = 1 • Prelec’s (1998) 1- and 2- parameter forms: • r controls curvature • r < 1 implies inverse-s shape; • r > 1 means s-shape • s controls elevation • s < 1 implies systematic overweighting of probabilities • s > 1 implies systematic underweighting of probabilities • We assume a logistic choice function with one “behavioral consistency” parameter, b. 𝑝 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 1 1 + 𝑒 𝑏|𝑢 𝑔1 −𝑢 𝑔2 | • Higher values of b imply more consistent choice behavior. • b = 0 implies 50/50 chance of choosing each option on each trial. • Risky choice task to estimate parameters of the probability weighting function at the individual and group levels in OCD, HD, and healthy control samples. • Sample: 28 HC, 29 OCD, 29 HD • 50 choices between 3-outcome gambles on $10, $350, and $1000 • Adaptive Design Optimization (Cavagnaro et al., 2013) • Decision stimuli were tailored to each subject to be maximally diagnostic for estimating parameter of the CPT model. • Hypotheses: • Group differences in v, r, s parameters of the CPT model; • OCD+HD more risk averse than controls -> greater v parameter in OCD+HD; greater s parameter? • OCD+HD closer to EU behavior -> more linear PWF? • Using ADO, the within-subject estimates of each parameter were very precise: • Contrary to expectations, v was parameter lower for OCD+HD less risk averse. • Group differences in r parameter estimates as well. • Healthy controls display “classic” inverse s-shaped PWF. • OCD, and to greater extent, HD, display s-shaped PWF. • S-shaped PWF would predict gambling aversion among OCD+HD. • Interesting because it has been suggested that Pathological Gambling (PG) is an “obsessive-compulsive spectrum” disorder, since PG symptoms can appear obsessive-compulsive. • Suggests PWF may help identify subgroups of patients with different cognitive phenotypes. • We tested whether parameter estimates related to symptom severity • YBOCS – predominant self-report measure of OCD signs/symptoms • In OCD sample, both v and r parameter values predicted compulsion subscale scores (multiple regression, r parameter coef. = -7.13 (p<0.001), v parameter coef. = -7.02 (p<0.05)) ; • No relationship with obsession subscale scores. • UHSS – widely used hoarding severity scale. • In HD sample, r parameter predicted UHSS score (r parameter coef. = 8.96, p<0.05). • Hence, r parameter value may differentiate OCD from HD; consistent with recent literature highlighting differences that culminated in creation of distinct category for HD in DSM-V. • We tested whether parameter estimates related to symptom severity • Beck Depression Inventory – predominant diagnostic questionnaire for depression. • Greater risk aversion predicted lower depression score (v parameter coef. = -14.78, p<0.01) . • Prior experimental evidence for relationship between risk aversion and depression is mixed (Smoski et al, 2008; Chapman et al., 2007). • All of the reported analyses were based on the 1-parameter PWF, which does not account for elevation. • Although the elevation parameter (s) in the PWF improves model-fit within subjects, it interacts with the other parameters of the model, making them all more difficult to interpret. • Correlation between v1 and v2 was 0.36 • Correlation between r1 and r2 was 0.21 • Correlation between v2 and s2 was -0.44 • Significant relationships and group-differences in risk aversion (v) and curvature (r) disappear when the elevation parameter is included. • Hsu et al. (2009) J. Neuroscience • "We focused on the one-parameter version of the Prelec function, as it fits only slightly worse than the two-parameter version, and permits simpler cross-subject comparison (since each subject’s curvature is expressed by one parameter rather than two)." • ADO successfully converged to best fitting PWF parameter estimates at the individual level. • We found that, OCD & HD patients were less risk averse than healthy controls. , contrary to a widely-held view in the literature • Healthy control group exhibited “classic” PWF shape. • OCD+HD parameter estimates suggest S-shaped PWF. • S-shape predicts aversion to gambling and absence of “certainty effect”; has implications for obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder hypothesis. • Parameter estimates were correlated with clinical symptom scales, suggesting that cognitive phenotypes defined by parameters may be related to processes fundamental to OCD & HD. • r parameter correlations with clinical scales support hypothesis that OCD and HD are distinct disorders. • Taken together, results argue for the value of the computational approach to psychiatry.
© Copyright 2024