A double-blind trial of decoded neurofeedback intervention for specific phobias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: A new closed-loop fMRI method called multi-voxel neuro-reinforcement has the potential to alleviate the subjective aversiveness of exposure-based interventions by directly inducing phobic representations in the brain, outside of conscious awareness. The current study seeks to test this method as an intervention for specific phobia. Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, controlled single-university trial, individuals diagnosed with at least two (1 target, 1 control) animal subtype specific phobias were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 1, 3, or 5 sessions of multi-voxel neuro-reinforcement in which they were rewarded for implicit activation of a target animal representation. Amygdala response to phobic stimuli was assessed by study staff blind to target and control animal assignments. Pre-treatment to post-treatment differences were analyzed with a 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA. Results: A total of 23 participants (69.6% female) were randomized to receive 1 (n=8), 3 (n=7), or 5 (n=7) sessions of multi-voxel neuro-reinforcement. Eighteen (n=6 each group) participants were analyzed for our primary outcome. After neuro-reinforcement, we observed an interaction indicating a significant decrease in amygdala response for the target phobia but not the control phobia. No adverse events or dropouts were reported as a result of the intervention. Conclusion: Results suggest multi-voxel neuro-reinforcement can specifically reduce threat signatures in specific phobia. Consequently, this intervention may complement conventional psychotherapy approaches with a non-distressing experience for patients seeking treatment. This trial sets the stage for a larger randomized clinical trial to replicate these results and examine the effects on real-life exposure. Clinical Trial Registration: The now-closed trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT03655262.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".