Trial reportDepression and anxiety2019
A neuromarker of clinical outcome in attention bias modification therapy for social anxiety disorder.
Trial report in Depression and anxiety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Brain structure changes induced by attention bias modification training.Biological psychology · 2019Trial
- Article
- Research hotspots and trends of neuroimaging in social anxiety: a CiteSpace bibliometric analysis based on Web of Science and Scopus database.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAttention bias modification (ABM) therapy aims to modify threat-related attention patterns via computerized tasks. Despite showing medium clinical effect sizes for anxiety disorders, underlying neural-cognitive mechanisms of change remain unclear. We used visual mismatch negativity (vMMN), an event-related potential sensitive to violations of learned statistical contingencies, to assess therapy-related contingency extraction processes in healthy participants and in patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD). We then assessed whether vMMN amplitude predicts ABM treatment outcome.
methodsA modified version of the dot-probe task was used to elicit vMMN, in which 80% of trials were standard and 20% were deviant. In study 1, 30 healthy adults were randomly assigned to one of two ABM conditions: one in which threat-congruent targets were deviant trials and threat-incongruent targets were standard trials, and another in which the contingency was reversed. Electroencephalography (EEG) was continuously measured and vMMN analyzed. In study 2, 38 patients with SAD underwent six sessions of ABM therapy. We tested whether rule extraction in the ABM task, indicated by vMMN amplitude, predicts treatment outcome.
resultsvMMN clearly emerged over prespecified scalp locations indicating contingency extraction during ABM (study 1). vMMN amplitude predicted clinical improvement after ABM therapy, uniquely accounting for 7% and 14.4% of the variance in clinician-rated and self-reported posttreatment SAD symptoms, respectively.
conclusionsvMMN emerges as a neural marker for contingency learning in ABM, suggesting a significant role for contingency extraction processes in the clinical efficacy of this therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.