Within the context of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), impaired decision-making has been referred to as an endophenotype bridging the clinical manifestation of OCD and its neurobiological origins. Previous evidence supports the notion that ambiguity plays a crucial role in driving differences in decision-making performance between individuals with OCD and healthy controls. Traditionally explored through the Iowa Gambling Task, a scenario where participants engage in a sequence of value-based decisions by drawing cards from four distinct decks, with the mean deck values learned throughout the trial.
Yet, real-life decision-making involves uncertainty about future prospects, prompting the dilemma of persisting with the current option or exploring potentially more advantageous, yet unknown, alternatives. We are therefore interested in how previous findings apply to a more realistic foraging decision-paradigm. In a previous experiment with a healthy sample, we identified deviations from ideal decision-making behavior as a function of subclinical presence of OCD-related symptoms, particularly in challenging environments.
Our investigation systematically manipulates environmental quality, option value, and the costs associated with maintaining or altering strategies. This approach aims to reveal factors contributing to potential impairments in OCD patients compared to healthy controls.
Our hypothesis posits that individuals with OCD will exhibit diminished sensitivity to the costs of persisting with current choices or exploring unknown options and display a bias toward exploiting familiar options, deviating from optimal decision models, particularly in challenging environments. This inquiry not only deepens our understanding of OCD's impact on decision-making but also provides a foundation for targeted interventions within this domain.