<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Harkin, Ben</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Miellet, Sebastien</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Kessler, Klaus</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2012-09-25</dc:date>
  <dc:description xmlns:ns0="xml" ns0:lang="en">Background: Not only is compulsive checking the most common symptom in  Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) with an estimated prevalence of 50–80% in  patients, but approximately ,15% of the general population reveal subclinical  checking tendencies that impact negatively on their performance in daily activities.  Therefore, it is critical to understand how checking affects attention and memory in  clinical as well as subclinical checkers. Eye fixations are commonly used as  indicators for the distribution of attention but research in OCD has revealed mixed  results at best. Methodology/Principal Finding: Here we report atypical eye movement  patterns in subclinical checkers during an ecologically valid working memory (WM)  manipulation. Our key manipulation was to present an intermediate probe during the  delay period of the memory task, explicitly asking for the location of a letter, which,  however, had not been part of the encoding set (i.e., misleading participants). Using  eye movement measures we now provide evidence that high checkers’ inhibitory  impairments for misleading information results in them checking the contents of WM  in an atypical manner. Checkers fixate more often and for longer when misleading  information is presented than non-checkers. Specifically, checkers spend more time  checking stimulus locations as well as locations that had actually been empty during  encoding. Conclusions/Significance: We conclude that these atypical eye movement  patterns directly reflect internal checking of memory contents and we discuss the  implications of our findings for the interpretation of behavioural and  neuropsychological data. In addition our results highlight the importance of  ecologically valid methodology for revealing the impact of detrimental attention and  memory checking on eye movement patterns.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/302533</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://folia.unifr.ch/documents/302533/files/journal.pone.0044689_1_.pdf</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0044689</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
  <dc:rights>License undefined</dc:rights>
  <dc:source>PLoS ONE / Soriano-Mas, Carles ; Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute-IDIBELL, Spain. - 2012, vol. 7, no. 9, p. 1-11</dc:source>
  <dc:subject>info:eu-repo/classification/udc/159.9</dc:subject>
  <dc:title xmlns:ns1="xml" ns1:lang="en">What Checkers Actually Check: An Eye Tracking Study of Inhibitory Control and Working Memory</dc:title>
  <dc:type>http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>
