↓ Skip to main content

Personalizing Affective Stimuli Using a Recommender Algorithm: An Example with Threatening Words for Trauma Exposed Populations

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Therapy and Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Personalizing Affective Stimuli Using a Recommender Algorithm: An Example with Threatening Words for Trauma Exposed Populations
Published in
Cognitive Therapy and Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10608-018-9923-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea N. Niles, Aoife O’Donovan

Abstract

Experimental paradigms used in affective and clinical science often use stimuli such as images, scenarios, videos, or words to elicit emotional responses in study participants. Choosing appropriate stimuli that are highly evocative is essential to the study of emotional processes in both healthy and clinical populations. Selecting one set of stimuli that will be relevant for all subjects can be challenging because not every person responds the same way to a given stimulus. Machine learning can facilitate the personalization of such stimuli. The current study applied a novel statistical approach called a recommender algorithm to the selection of highly threatening words for a trauma-exposed population (N = 837). Participants rated 513 threatening words, and we trained a user-user collaborative filtering recommender algorithm. The algorithm uses similarities between individuals to predict ratings for unrated words. We compared threat ratings for algorithm-based word selection to a random word set, a word set previously used in research, and trauma-specific word sets. Algorithm-selected personalized words were more threatening compared to non-personalized words with large effects (ds = 2.10-2.92). Recommender algorithms can automate the personalization of stimuli from a large pool of possible stimuli to maximize emotional reactivity in research paradigms. These methods also hold potential for the personalization of behavioral treatments administered remotely where a provider is not available to tailor an intervention to the individual. The word personalization algorithm is available for use online (https://threat-word-predictor.herokuapp.com/).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Computer Science 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2020.
All research outputs
#15,736,729
of 25,389,532 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Therapy and Research
#643
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,377
of 342,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Therapy and Research
#7
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,389,532 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.