![\"\"](\"http:\/\/idrasilrx.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/todolist.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a Saturday afternoon and you bunker down on your sofa to watch a marathon of \u201cBuffy the Vampire Slayer.\u201d Your mom calls and asks you to check if she left the stove on. The average person may remember already checking the stove that morning and can feel confident that their memory is correct. \u201cAll is good mom\u2014 No need to get off this couch and check.\u201d \u00a0An individual with OCD (a mental disorder that impairs daily life via obsessions and compulsions) is mostly likely going to go to the kitchen and double-check even though they have this feeling of knowing that they had previously checked it. Thoughts such as \u201cmaybe I actually checked the stove yesterday instead of this morning\u201d may cross your mind; you will ultimately be forced to get off the couch and check the stove to appease mom (and your own anxieties).<\/p>\n
This example highlights the self-doubt that OCD can create. When you think about people with OCD, you may refer to the classic germaphobe that performs compulsive hand-washing rituals. No matter how many times they wash their hands, the \u201cclean\u201d feeling is never achieved. People with OCD whose obsessions revolved repeated checking also lack a feeling of satisfaction or resolution\u2014the stove doesn\u2019t feel like it was off after the first check or maybe you remembered the first check incorrectly and thus the vicious cycle of compulsive checking begins. As repeated checking persists, recollection shifts from “remembering” (having exact accounts of when\/how an event happened) to “knowing” (having a general idea of what happened).<\/p>\n
It is suggested that repeated checking in OCD patients is derived from feelings of personal responsibility and self-perpetuating doubt. You would think that repeating the same events over and over again would improve your memory of those actions and your confidence in completing those actions, but the opposite is the case. The behavior of repetitive checking becomes a breeding ground for further confusion and lack of confidence because of the interfering nature multiple checks can have on your memory. The more times you check something, the fuzzier the \u201cremembering\u201d of the latest check becomes, thus the rise of self-perpetuating doubt.<\/p>\n
A recent study conducted by Radomsky and colleagues (2014) aimed to investigate how repeated checking of a functional stove impacts metamemory and memory accuracy, specifically in clinical OCD patients whose obsessions revolves around self-checking. The level of confidence, vividness, and detail of a memory is known as metamemory. The amount of detail recalled correctly from the latest case of checking is known as memory accuracy. For example, if you could recall the last 3 knobs you checked on a stove after a set of repetitive actions such as turning on\/off and checking all knobs, then your memory accuracy is pretty decent.<\/p>\n
The experiment was designed to answer the following: Does repeated checking of the same item result in lower metamemory and memory accuracy? If so, what are the differences in metamemory and memory accuracy for OCD versus non-OCD participants?<\/p>\n
Participants with and without OCD were trained on how to use the laboratory stove and sink by turning stove knobs on\/off and turning the hot\/cold faucets fully\/halfway. For the initial checking trial with the stove, participants were left alone in the kitchen and given instructions by the experimenter via intercom. Instructions included commands such as “turn on”, “turn off”, and “check.”\u00a0 Participants then\u00a0completed an assessment of memory accuracy by marking off on a diagram of the stove the last three knobs checked. They also completed an assessment of metamemory by rating their confidence, vividness, and detail of the latest trial on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 100 (extremely). These assessments measured the baseline values of metamemory and memory accuracy. Participants were then randomly assigned to either work with the stove or sink for several trials. Working with the sink was considered the \u201cfiller\u201d task, and basically acted as the control group of the experiment. Working with the stove was what represented the repeated checking group. After participants either worked with the stove or sink for several trials, everyone had to complete one more trial with the stove. They were then assessed on how well their metamemory and memory accuracy was for this last trial.<\/p>\n
The results showed that metamemory and memory accuracy did decrease for those in the repeated checking group. In other words, those who handled the stove for all trials correctly marked the diagram of the stove less than those who checked the sink and were also lower in their confidence\/detail\/vividness of the last stove checking. The repetitive actions with the same appliance created a lot of proactive interference for \u201cremembering\u201d the final trial. Those who were in the sink condition had less interference when it came time for the final trial because they were occupied with a different\/unrelated task. The differences between the OCD and non-OCD group were negligible.<\/p>\n
Researchers were then interested if these results would change if the operation of the sink was posed as the repeated-checking condition, rather than the operation of the stove. It was suggested that there may be differences in results because of the differing consequences a stove and sink have if left turned on. In other words, what is going to freak you out more?\u2014the potential of your house being on fire or a flood in the kitchen? These concerns are the kind that would make you grudgingly turn around the car and go check. But does the source of concern impact our level of self doubt or is the source negligible? Results support that there is no difference in metamemory or memory accuracy between repeated sink or stove checking. But, it is important to note that this second experiment did not include participants with OCD and only involved undergrad nonclinical participants. This limitation was recognized and though it was suggested that OCD participants would experience the same extent of metamemory and memory accuracy losses as nonclinical participants (due to the result of the first experiment), further research is needed to test OCD participants on sink checking. Overall, the findings suggest that the source of checking is negligible and does not seem to impact changes in metamemory or memory accuracy.<\/p>\n
This kind of research is important because of the practical implications in OCD therapy it offers. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the disorder and the operational components of obsessive behavior will help intervention methods. In addition, this kind of\u00a0research allows us to question if repeated reflection is what feeds self-doubt and ultimately repeated checking. Answers to these broader propositions may help those with not only OCD, but those with other anxiety disorders, on how to best cope with obsessive\u00a0thoughts and rumination. So the next time you wonder if you left the stove on or if you fed the dog, go ahead and check once, but remember that extensively obsessing over these tasks will only perpetuate feelings of distress and will leave you in a vicious cycle of self-doubt.<\/p>\n
To read the full article, click\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/p>\n