↓ Skip to main content

Approach bias modification in alcohol dependence: Do clinical effects replicate and for whom does it work best?

Overview of attention for article published in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
214 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Approach bias modification in alcohol dependence: Do clinical effects replicate and for whom does it work best?
Published in
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, December 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.dcn.2012.11.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eberl C, Wiers RW, Pawelczack S, Rinck M, Becker ES, Lindenmeyer J, Carolin Eberl, Reinout W. Wiers, Steffen Pawelczack, Mike Rinck, Eni S. Becker, Johannes Lindenmeyer

Abstract

Alcoholism is a progressive neurocognitive developmental disorder. Recent evidence shows that computerized training interventions (Cognitive Bias Modification, CBM) can reverse some of these maladaptively changed neurocognitive processes. A first clinical study of a CBM, called alcohol-avoidance training, found that trained alcoholic patients showed less relapse at one-year follow-up than control patients. The present study tested the replication of this result, and questions about mediation and moderation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Netherlands 3 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 197 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 25%
Student > Master 52 24%
Researcher 36 17%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 6%
Other 41 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 146 68%
Unspecified 21 10%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 17 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,791,389
of 11,275,925 outputs
Outputs from Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
#117
of 457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,496
of 311,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,275,925 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 311,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.