The role of working memory in compulsive checking and OCD: a systematic classification of 58 experimental findings

Ben Harkin, Klaus Kessler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Despite the large body of research regarding the role of memory in OCD, the results are described as mixed at best (Hermans et al., 2008). For example, inconsistent findings have been reported with respect to basic capacity, intact verbal, and generally affected visuospatial memory. We suggest that this is due to the traditional pursuit of OCD memory impairment as one of the general capacity and/or domain specificity (visuospatial vs. verbal). In contrast, we conclude from our experiments (i.e., Harkin & Kessler, 2009, 2011; Harkin, Rutherford, & Kessler, 2011) and recent literature (e.g., Greisberg & McKay, 2003) that OCD memory impairment is secondary to executive dysfunction, and more specifically we identify three common factors (EBL: Executive-functioning efficiency, Binding complexity, and memory Load) that we generalize to 58 experimental findings from 46 OCD memory studies. As a result we explain otherwise inconsistent research – e.g., intact vs. deficient verbal memory – that are difficult to reconcile within a capacity or domain specific perspective. We conclude by discussing the relationship between our account and others', which in most cases is complementary rather than contradictory.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1004-1021
Number of pages18
JournalClinical Psychology Review
Volume31
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2011

Fingerprint

Short-Term Memory
Research
Efficiency

Bibliographical note

NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Clinical psychology review. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Harkin, B & Kessler, K, 'The role of working memory in compulsive checking and OCD: a systematic classification of 58 experimental findings' Clinical psychology review, vol. 31, no. 6 (2011) DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.004

Keywords

  • obsessive–compulsive disorder
  • executive function
  • episodic buffer
  • binding complexity
  • memory load

Cite this

@article{17f5635b33bc4f28b0e3e6924f2761df,
title = "The role of working memory in compulsive checking and OCD: a systematic classification of 58 experimental findings",
abstract = "Despite the large body of research regarding the role of memory in OCD, the results are described as mixed at best (Hermans et al., 2008). For example, inconsistent findings have been reported with respect to basic capacity, intact verbal, and generally affected visuospatial memory. We suggest that this is due to the traditional pursuit of OCD memory impairment as one of the general capacity and/or domain specificity (visuospatial vs. verbal). In contrast, we conclude from our experiments (i.e., Harkin & Kessler, 2009, 2011; Harkin, Rutherford, & Kessler, 2011) and recent literature (e.g., Greisberg & McKay, 2003) that OCD memory impairment is secondary to executive dysfunction, and more specifically we identify three common factors (EBL: Executive-functioning efficiency, Binding complexity, and memory Load) that we generalize to 58 experimental findings from 46 OCD memory studies. As a result we explain otherwise inconsistent research – e.g., intact vs. deficient verbal memory – that are difficult to reconcile within a capacity or domain specific perspective. We conclude by discussing the relationship between our account and others', which in most cases is complementary rather than contradictory.",
keywords = "obsessive–compulsive disorder, executive function, episodic buffer, binding complexity, memory load",
author = "Ben Harkin and Klaus Kessler",
note = "NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Clinical psychology review. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Harkin, B & Kessler, K, 'The role of working memory in compulsive checking and OCD: a systematic classification of 58 experimental findings' Clinical psychology review, vol. 31, no. 6 (2011) DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.004",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.004",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "1004--1021",
journal = "Clinical Psychology Review",
issn = "0272-7358",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "6",

}

The role of working memory in compulsive checking and OCD : a systematic classification of 58 experimental findings. / Harkin, Ben; Kessler, Klaus.

In: Clinical Psychology Review, Vol. 31, No. 6, 08.2011, p. 1004-1021.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The role of working memory in compulsive checking and OCD

T2 - Clinical Psychology Review

AU - Harkin, Ben

AU - Kessler, Klaus

N1 - NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Clinical psychology review. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Harkin, B & Kessler, K, 'The role of working memory in compulsive checking and OCD: a systematic classification of 58 experimental findings' Clinical psychology review, vol. 31, no. 6 (2011) DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.004

PY - 2011/8

Y1 - 2011/8

N2 - Despite the large body of research regarding the role of memory in OCD, the results are described as mixed at best (Hermans et al., 2008). For example, inconsistent findings have been reported with respect to basic capacity, intact verbal, and generally affected visuospatial memory. We suggest that this is due to the traditional pursuit of OCD memory impairment as one of the general capacity and/or domain specificity (visuospatial vs. verbal). In contrast, we conclude from our experiments (i.e., Harkin & Kessler, 2009, 2011; Harkin, Rutherford, & Kessler, 2011) and recent literature (e.g., Greisberg & McKay, 2003) that OCD memory impairment is secondary to executive dysfunction, and more specifically we identify three common factors (EBL: Executive-functioning efficiency, Binding complexity, and memory Load) that we generalize to 58 experimental findings from 46 OCD memory studies. As a result we explain otherwise inconsistent research – e.g., intact vs. deficient verbal memory – that are difficult to reconcile within a capacity or domain specific perspective. We conclude by discussing the relationship between our account and others', which in most cases is complementary rather than contradictory.

AB - Despite the large body of research regarding the role of memory in OCD, the results are described as mixed at best (Hermans et al., 2008). For example, inconsistent findings have been reported with respect to basic capacity, intact verbal, and generally affected visuospatial memory. We suggest that this is due to the traditional pursuit of OCD memory impairment as one of the general capacity and/or domain specificity (visuospatial vs. verbal). In contrast, we conclude from our experiments (i.e., Harkin & Kessler, 2009, 2011; Harkin, Rutherford, & Kessler, 2011) and recent literature (e.g., Greisberg & McKay, 2003) that OCD memory impairment is secondary to executive dysfunction, and more specifically we identify three common factors (EBL: Executive-functioning efficiency, Binding complexity, and memory Load) that we generalize to 58 experimental findings from 46 OCD memory studies. As a result we explain otherwise inconsistent research – e.g., intact vs. deficient verbal memory – that are difficult to reconcile within a capacity or domain specific perspective. We conclude by discussing the relationship between our account and others', which in most cases is complementary rather than contradictory.

KW - obsessive–compulsive disorder

KW - executive function

KW - episodic buffer

KW - binding complexity

KW - memory load

U2 - 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.004

DO - 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.004

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 1004

EP - 1021

JO - Clinical Psychology Review

JF - Clinical Psychology Review

SN - 0272-7358

IS - 6

ER -