Cited by 64Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDigital Mental Health InterventionsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

For whom the bell tolls: Neurocognitive individual differences in the acute stress-reduction effects of an attention bias modification game for anxiety

Open access
Dennis-Tiwary, Tracy A., Egan, Laura J., Babkirk, Sarah, Denefrio, Samantha·2016·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

The efficacy of attention bias modification training (ABMT) for anxiety is debated, in part because individual differences in task engagement and pre-training threat bias impact training efficacy. In the present study, an engaging, gamified ABMT mobile application, or "app," was utilized in 42 (21 females) trait-anxious adults. EEG was recorded during pre- and post-training threat bias assessment to generate scalp-recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) reflecting neurocognitive responses to threat. Following app play (ABMT versus placebo), subjective anxiety and stress responses (observed and self-reported) were measured. ABMT, versus placebo, resulted in improved behavioral performance during the stress task for females, and in potentiation of the N2 ERP to threat for males, suggesting increased attention control. Training groups did not differ in self-reported anxiety. ABMT also resulted in improved performance during the stress task among those evidencing specific pre-training ERP responses: decreased P1, suggesting less attention allocation, but potentiated N170, suggesting enhanced attention selection and discrimination. Differences in behavioral threat bias did not moderate training effects. Results suggest that efficient allocation of attention to threat combined with enhanced discrimination between threat and non-threat may facilitate stress-reduction effects of ABMT. Targeting neurocognitive responses to threat to personalize ABMT and develop more effective methods of treatment delivery, such as gamification, are discussed.

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 · 10.1016/j.brat.2015.12.008

Cites

121 of 121 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?

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. Hayes AF Introductionto mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach 2013 New York Guilford Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dennis-Tiwary, T. A., Egan, L. J., Babkirk, S., & Denefrio, S.
Affiliations
  • City University of New York (US)
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
77
Pages
105-117
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2209659876
Cited by
64
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5
FWCI
11.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (TR000457, MD007599)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (TR000457, MD007599)
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (TR000457, MD007599)
  • National Institutes of Health (TR000457, MD007599)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
attentional bias modification, anxiety, stress reduction, threat bias, individual differences, gamified mobile application, event-related potentials, N2, P1, N170, attentional control, sex differences, personalized treatment
MeSH terms
Attentional Bias, Adult, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Attention, Evoked Potentials, Female, Games, Experimental, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Sex Factors, Stress, Psychological, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Young Adult, Self Report, Mobile Applications

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