Cited by 61Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDigital Mental Health InterventionsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Online visual search attentional bias modification for adolescents with heightened anxiety and depressive symptoms: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
De Voogd, E.L., Wiers, R.W., Salemink, E.·2017·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Anxiety and depression, which are highly prevalent in adolescence, are both characterized by a negative attentional bias. As Attentional Bias Modification (ABM) can reduce such a bias, and might also affect emotional reactivity, it could be a promising early intervention. However, a growing number of studies also report comparable improvements in both active and placebo groups. The current study investigated the effects of eight online sessions of visual search (VS) ABM compared to both a VS placebo-training and a no-training control group in adolescents with heightened symptoms of anxiety and/or depression (n = 108). Attention bias, interpretation bias, and stress-reactivity were assessed pre- and post-training. Primary outcomes of anxiety and depressive symptoms, and secondary measures of emotional resilience were assessed pre- and post-training and at three and six months follow-up. Results revealed that VS training reduced attentional bias compared to both control groups, with stronger effects for participants who completed more training sessions. Irrespective of training condition, an overall reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression and an increase in emotional resilience were observed up to six months later. The training was evaluated relatively negatively. Results suggest that online ABM as employed in the current study has no added value as an early intervention in adolescents with heightened symptoms.

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.2017.02.006

Cites

65 of 65 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?

  • Evidence for therapeutic efficacy of alternative ABM training methods is limited.

    “Evidence for the therapeutic efficacy of alternative ABM training methods is limited.”
  • 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”
  • Multi-session emotional face visual search training has mixed effects on nonclinical adolescent anxiety, with poor compliance possibly due to insufficient goal engagement.

    “Multi-session emotional face visual search training has mixed effects on nonclinical adolescent anxiety, with problems of poor compliance possibly owing to insufficient goal engagement [71,73,74].”
  • 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.”

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. S1352465811000671. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
De Voogd, E. L., Wiers, R. W., & Salemink, E.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-05
Volume
92
Pages
57-67
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2589637691
Cited by
60
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
6.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
ZonMw (200210010)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
attentional bias modification, visual search, adolescents, anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, interpretation bias, stress reactivity, psychological resilience, online training, early intervention
MeSH terms
Attentional Bias, Adolescent, Anxiety, Child, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Psychotherapy, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Treatment Outcome, Resilience, Psychological, Young Adult

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