↓ Skip to main content

Working Memory Training and CBT Reduces Anxiety Symptoms and Attentional Biases to Threat: A Preliminary Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
160 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
Working Memory Training and CBT Reduces Anxiety Symptoms and Attentional Biases to Threat: A Preliminary Study
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie A. Hadwin, Helen J. Richards

Abstract

Research indicates that cognitive processes linked to the detection of threat stimuli are associated with poor attentional control, placing children and adolescents at increased risk for the development of anxious affect. The current study aimed to provide preliminary data to assess whether an intervention designed to improve attentional control (via working memory; WM) would lead to better performance in tests of WM and would be associated with positive changes in symptoms of trait and test anxiety, increased inhibitory control and reduced attention to threat. Forty adolescents aged 11-14 years who reported elevated anxiety and low attentional control were randomly allocated to a WM training or an active cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) control group. Post intervention, WM training was associated with greater improvements (versus. CBT) in trained WM tasks. Both groups, however, reported fewer anxiety symptoms, demonstrated increased inhibitory control and a reduction in attentional biases to threat post intervention and these results were maintained at follow up. The study provides indicative evidence which suggests that WM training has similar benefits to a more traditional CBT intervention on reduced anxiety and attentional biases for threat. Future research should aim to replicate the findings in a large sample size and explore the broader impact of training on day-to-day functioning. In addition, further research is needed to identify which participants benefit most from different interventions (using baseline characteristics) on treatment compliance and outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 158 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 20%
Student > Master 23 14%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 44 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 73 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 6%
Neuroscience 9 6%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 52 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 September 2016.
All research outputs
#17,780,575
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,488
of 29,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,532
of 397,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#374
of 473 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 397,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 473 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.