Trial reportPsychological medicine2025
The effectiveness and neurobiological actions of memory bias modification: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Psychological medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSubstantial evidence supports the efficacy of cognitive bias modification (CBM) for attention and interpretation. However, CBM targeting memory bias (CBM-M) remains underexplored despite its clinical relevance. This study examines the effectiveness and neurobiological mechanisms of CBM-M.
methodsFifty-eight individuals with elevated anxious and depressive personality traits (>1 SD) were randomly assigned to either CBM-M or sham training (n = 29 per group) in a parallel, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. The intervention involved eight sessions over 1 month. CBM-M aimed to enhance positive autobiographical memory (AM) recall by focusing on positive and negative words, whereas sham training lacked this enhancement module. Anxiety and depressive traits and symptoms, explicit and implicit memory biases, and AM specificity were assessed. Additionally, intrinsic functional connectivity was measured via functional magnetic resonance imaging, and cortisol levels were assayed via saliva collected at 10 time points across 2 days before and after the intervention.
resultsBoth groups showed reduced anxiety and depressive traits from pre- to post-intervention. Compared with sham training, CBM-M specifically reduced stress vulnerability, negative explicit memory bias, and daytime cortisol levels, with a large effect size. Improvement in memory bias correlated with stress vulnerability and cortisol reductions. CBM-M also enhanced amygdala functional connectivity with the anteromedial orbitofrontal cortex in comparison with sham training from pre- to post-intervention.
conclusionsCBM-M reduced stress vulnerability and elicited neural changes in amygdala-anteromedial orbitofrontal cortex interactions, which were involved in social reward and AM recall. Future research should identify the most responsive populations and elucidate underlying mechanisms.
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.