Evidence mapPaperPMID 42459150Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2026

Active Ingredients in Digital Cognitive Interventions: Integrating Dismantling Designs With Mechanistic Neuroscience.

Sarah Shizuko Morimoto, Cutter Augustus Lindbergh, Alexander Conley, Dusti R Jones, David C Steffens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sarah Shizuko MorimotoDivision of Health Systems Innovation and Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Williams Building, 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, United States, 1-801-587-1288.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-4211-0561
Cutter Augustus LindberghDepartment of Psychiatry, UConn Health, Farmington, CT, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9329-4663
Alexander ConleyDepartment of Psychiatry, Center for Cognitive Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1159-5524
Dusti R JonesDepartment of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9060-7046
David C SteffensDepartment of Psychiatry, UConn Health, Farmington, CT, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6626-7398

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unlabelled: Digital cognitive interventions (DCIs) have emerged as scalable approaches for treating cognitive dysfunction across psychiatric, neurological, and aging populations. Despite growing evidence of efficacy, little is known about which intervention components drive therapeutic effects or through which neurocognitive mechanisms they operate. As a result, null findings are often difficult to interpret, making it unclear whether interventions failed to engage their intended targets, or whether the targets themselves are not causally related to meaningful outcomes. This limits intervention refinement, comparative evaluation, and precision personalization. Here, we argue that DCI research should shift from broad efficacy testing toward mechanistic trials designed to identify active ingredients-the intervention components responsible for engaging prespecified neurocognitive targets and producing clinically meaningful benefits. We propose adapting dismantling design methodology from psychotherapy research in order to integrate Research Domain Criteria constructs, mechanistic neuroscience, and high-resolution digital behavioral data to identify factors driving cognitive and functional outcomes. This approach aligns with the National Institute of Mental Health experimental therapeutics framework by explicitly linking target specification and target engagement with downstream clinical and functional outcomes. Mechanistic dismantling trials can determine whether specific DCI features, including adaptive difficulty, reward schedules, feedback contingencies, task variability, cognitive targets, and human support, are necessary, sufficient, or synergistic for engaging neural circuitry and producing durable and clinically meaningful transfer. Beyond optimizing intervention design, such studies may transform null or negative trials into mechanistically interpretable findings, while clarifying disease mechanisms and supporting the development of personalized, optimized, and usable DCIs.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyCognitive DysfunctionNeurosciencesResearch DesignDigital MediaHumansactive ingredientscognitioncognitive remediationdigitaldismantling

Identifiers

PMID42459150
PMCPMC13373463

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.