MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981047585 · doi:10.1503/jpn.180118

Attentional bias modification is associated with fMRI response toward negative stimuli in individuals with residual depression: a randomized controlled trial

2019· article· en· W2981047585 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eva Hilland, Nils Inge Landrø, Catherine J. Harmer, Michael Browning, Luigi A. Maglanoc, Rune Jonassen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsPsychologyAnterior cingulate cortexAttentional biasBrain activity and meditationAmygdalaFunctional magnetic resonance imagingRandomized controlled trialFacial expressionAudiologyDepression (economics)Emotion perceptionNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyPerceptionElectroencephalographyCognitionMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Attentional bias modification (ABM) may lead to more adaptive emotion perception and emotion regulation. Understanding the neural basis of these effects may lead to greater precision for the development of future treatments. Task-related functional MRI (fMRI) after ABM training has not been investigated in depression so far. The main aim of this randomized controlled trial was to explore differences in brain activity after ABM training, in response to emotional stimuli. Methods: A total of 134 people with previous depression, who had been treated for depression and had various degrees of residual symptoms, were randomized to 14 days of active ABM or a closely matched placebo training, followed by an fMRI emotion regulation task. The training procedure was a classical dot–probe task with emotional face stimuli. In the active ABM condition, the probes replaced the more positively valenced face of a given pair. As participants implicitly learned to predict the probe location, this would be likely to induce a more positive attentional bias. The placebo condition was identical, except for the contingency of the probe, which appeared equally behind positive and negative stimuli. We compared depression symptoms and subjective ratings of perceived negativity during fMRI between the training groups. We explored brain activation in predefined regions of interest and across the whole brain. We explored activation in areas associated with changes in attentional bias and degree of depression. Results: Compared with the placebo group, the ABM group showed reduced activation in the amygdala and the anterior cingulate cortex when passively viewing negative images. We found no group differences in predefined regions of interest associated with emotion regulation strategies. Response in the temporal cortices was associated with the degree of change in attentional bias and the degree of depressive symptoms in ABM versus placebo. Limitations: These findings should be replicated in other samples of patients with depression, and in studies using fMRI designs that allow analyses of within-group variability from baseline to follow-up. Conclusion: Attentional bias modification training has an effect on brain function in the circuitry associated with emotional appraisal and the generation of affective states. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02931487

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207