↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Cognitive Bias Modification Training via Smartphones

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Effects of Cognitive Bias Modification Training via Smartphones
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01370
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ranming Yang, Lixia Cui, Feng Li, Jing Xiao, Qin Zhang, Tian P. S. Oei

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Negative cognitive biases have been linked to anxiety and mood problems. Accumulated data from laboratory studies show that positive and negative interpretation styles with accompanying changes in mood can be induced through cognitive bias modification (CBM) paradigms. Despite the therapeutic potential of positive training effects, few studies have explored training paradigms administered via smartphones. The current study aimed to compare the effectiveness of three different types of training programmes (cognitive bias modification-attention, CBM-A; cognitive bias modification-interpretation, CBM-I; attention and interpretation modification, AIM) administered via smart-phones by using a control condition (CC). Methods:Seventy-six undergraduate participants with high social anxiety (Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, LSAS ≥ 30) were randomly assigned to four groups: CBM-A (n = 20), CBM-I (n = 20), AIM (n = 16), and CC (n = 20). Results: The results showed that the effects of CBM training, CBM-I training, or AIM training vs. CC for attention yielded no significant differences in dot-probe attention bias scores. The CBM-I group showed significantly less threat interpretation and more benign interpretation than the CC group on interpretation bias scores. Conclusions: The present results supported the feasibility of delivering CBM-I via smartphones, but the effectiveness of CBM-A and AIM training via smartphones was limited.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 20%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 34 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 42 40%
Computer Science 5 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 42 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 October 2021.
All research outputs
#6,804,446
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,696
of 30,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,131
of 317,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#270
of 593 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 317,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 593 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 53% of its contemporaries.