Cited by 19Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

A pilot study of an adaptive, idiographic, and multi-component attention bias modification program for social anxiety disorder

Open access
Amir, Nader, Kuckertz, Jennie M., Strege, Marlene V.·2016·Cognitive Therapy and Research

Abstract

An attentional bias toward threat may be one mechanism underlying clinical anxiety. Attention bias modification (ABM) aims to reduce symptoms of anxiety disorders by directly modifying this deficit. However, existing ABM training programs have not consistently modified attentional bias and may not reflect optimal learning needs of participants (i.e., lack of explicit instruction, training goal unclear to participants, lack of feedback, non-adaptive, inability to differentiate or target different components of attentional bias). In the current study, we introduce a new adaptive ABM program (AABM) and test its feasibility in individuals with social anxiety disorder. We report task characteristics and preliminary evidence that this task consistently modifies attentional bias and that changes in attentional bias (but not number of trials) correlate with the level of symptom reduction. These results suggest that AABM may be a targeted method for the next generation of studies examining the utility of attention training.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10608-016-9781-1

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ABM threat-avoidance training is repetitious and boring, which may reduce treatment compliance.

    “ABM threat-avoidance training is also repetitious and boring, which may reduce treatment compliance [20,21].”
  • Lack of consensus about why conventional ABM has inconsistent effects has encouraged development of alternative methods with preliminary efficacy data.

    “Lack of consensus regarding why conventional ABM threat-avoidance training has inconsistent effects (discussed earlier) has encouraged the development of various alternative methods which have preliminary data suggesting efficacy”
  • In most ABM training methods, nonthreat targets are more likely to appear in different locations from threat cues, encouraging attention-orienting away from threat.

    “In most ABM training methods, nonthreat targets are more likely to appear in different locations [ 5 0 8 _ T D $ D I F F ] from threat cues, which encourages attention-orienting away from threat.”
  • Clinical studies report anxiety reduction following adaptive ABM, gaze-contingent music-reward therapy combined with CBT, emotional face visual search training, and enhanced positive search training.

    “Clinical studies which evaluate multi-session ABM training in individuals with anxiety disorders report anxiety reduction following adaptive ABM (uncontrolled pilot study), gaze-contingent music-reward therapy (combined with CBT), emotional face visual search training, and enhanced positive search training [21,69,72,75,76].”
  • Several ABM training methods explicitly inform participants of training goals, which should facilitate goal-directed cognitive control.

    “Several ABM training methods explicitly inform participants of the training goals, and this should also facilitate goal-directed cognitive control (adaptive ABM, A-FACT, enhanced positive search training).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JtBW Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version Patient Edition (SCID-I/P) New York Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute 11 2002

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amir, N., Kuckertz, J. M., & Strege, M. V.
Affiliations
San Diego State University (US)
Corresponding author
Amir, Nader
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Published
2016-05-07
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
661-671
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
OpenAlex
W2467987941
Cited by
19
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01 MH087623)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
attentional bias modification, social anxiety disorder, adaptive training, symptom relief, feasibility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review