MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4381430634 · doi:10.2196/44888

Changes in Learning From Social Feedback After Web-Based Interpretation Bias Modification: Secondary Analysis of a Digital Mental Health Intervention Among Individuals With High Social Anxiety Symptoms

2023· article· en· W4381430634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miranda Beltzer, Katharine E. Daniel, Alexander R. Daros, Bethany A. Teachman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthJefferson Scholars Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive bias modificationSocial anxietyPsychological interventionReinforcement learningAnxietySocial learningReinforcementIntervention (counseling)Session (web analytics)Developmental psychologyAttentional biasCognitive psychologyCognitionClinical psychologyCognitive biasSocial psychologyArtificial intelligencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Biases in social reinforcement learning, or the process of learning to predict and optimize behavior based on rewards and punishments in the social environment, may underlie and maintain some negative cognitive biases that are characteristic of social anxiety. However, little is known about how cognitive and behavioral interventions may change social reinforcement learning in individuals who are anxious. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed whether a scalable, web-based cognitive bias modification for interpretations (CBM-I) intervention changed social reinforcement learning biases in participants with high social anxiety symptoms. This study focused on 2 types of social reinforcement learning relevant to social anxiety: learning about other people and learning about one's own social performance. METHODS: Participants (N=106) completed 2 laboratory sessions, separated by 5 weeks of ecological momentary assessment tracking emotion regulation strategy use and affect. Approximately half (n=51, 48.1%) of the participants completed up to 6 brief daily sessions of CBM-I in week 3. Participants completed a task that assessed social reinforcement learning about other people in both laboratory sessions and a task that assessed social reinforcement learning about one's own social performance in the second session. Behavioral data from these tasks were computationally modeled using Q-learning and analyzed using mixed effects models. RESULTS: After the CBM-I intervention, participants updated their beliefs about others more slowly (P=.04; Cohen d=-0.29) but used what they learned to make more accurate decisions (P=.005; Cohen d=0.20), choosing rewarding faces more frequently. These effects were not observed among participants who did not complete the CBM-I intervention. Participants who completed the CBM-I intervention also showed less-biased updating about their social performance than participants who did not complete the CBM-I intervention, learning similarly from positive and negative feedback and from feedback on items related to poor versus good social performance. Regardless of the intervention condition, participants at session 2 versus session 1 updated their expectancies about others more from rewarding (P=.003; Cohen d=0.43) and less from punishing outcomes (P=.001; Cohen d=-0.47), and they became more accurate at learning to avoid punishing faces (P=.001; Cohen d=0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our results provide initial evidence that there may be some beneficial effects of both the CBM-I intervention and self-tracking of emotion regulation on social reinforcement learning in individuals who are socially anxious, although replication will be important.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes→French-language works237,207→