ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Digital assessment of cognitive-affective biases related to mental health.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Digital Tool for Assessing the Distinct Effects of Depression, Anxiety, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) on Children's Emotional Cognitive Bias: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With an increasing societal need for digital therapy solutions for poor mental health, we face a corresponding rise in demand for scientifically validated digital contents. In this study we aimed to lay a sound scientific foundation for the development of brain-based digital therapeutics to assess and monitor cognitive effects of social and emotional bias across diverse populations and age-ranges. First, we developed three computerized cognitive tasks using animated graphics: 1) an emotional flanker task designed to test attentional bias, 2) an emotional go-no-go task to measure bias in memory and executive function, and 3) an emotional social evaluation task to measure sensitivity to social judgments. Then, we confirmed the generalizability of our results in a wide range of samples (children (N = 50), young adults (N = 172), older adults (N = 39), online young adults (N=93), and depression patients (N = 41)) using touchscreen and online computer-based tasks, and devised a spontaneous thought generation task that was strongly associated with, and therefore could potentially serve as an alternative to, self-report scales. Using PCA, we extracted five components that represented different aspects of cognitive-affective function (emotional bias, emotional sensitivity, general accuracy, and general/social attention). Next, a gamified version of the above tasks was developed to test the feasibility of digital cognitive training over a 2-week period. A pilot training study utilizing this application showed decreases in emotional bias in the training group (that were not observed in the control group), which was correlated with a reduction in anxiety symptoms. Using a 2-channel wearable EEG system, we found that frontal alpha and gamma power were associated with both emotional bias and its reduction across the 2-week training period.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.