Randomized controlled trial of computerized approach/avoidance training in social anxiety disorder: Neural and symptom outcomes

Towards implementation of cognitive bias modification in mental health care: State of the science, best practices, and ways forward

Cognitive bias modification (CBM) has evolved from an experimental method testing cognitive mechanisms of psychopathology to a promising tool for accessible digital mental health care. While we are still discovering the conditions under which clinically relevant effects occur, the dire need for accessible, effective, and low-cost mental health tools underscores the need for implementation where such tools are available. Providing our expert opinion as Association for Cognitive Bias Modification members, we first discuss the readiness of different CBM approaches for clinical implementation, then discuss key considerations with regard to implementation. Evidence is robust for approach bias modification as an adjunctive intervention for alcohol use disorders and interpretation bias modification as a stand-alone intervention for anxiety disorders. Theoretical predictions regarding the mechanisms by which bias and symptom change occur await further testing. We propose that CBM interventions with demonstrated efficacy should be provided to the targeted populations. To facilitate this, we set a research agenda based on implementation frameworks, which includes feasibility and acceptability testing, co-creation with end-users, and collaboration with industry partners.

Comparison of two reaction-time-based and one foraging-based behavioral approach-avoidance tasks in relation to interindividual differences and their reliability

Approaching rewards and avoiding punishments is a fundamental aspect of behavior, yet individuals differ in the extent of these behavioral tendencies. One popular method to assess differences in approach-avoidance tendencies and even modify them, is using behavioral tasks in which spontaneous responses to differently valenced stimuli are assessed (e.g., the visual joystick and the manikin task). Understanding whether these reaction-time-based tasks map onto the same underlying constructs, how they predict interindividual differences in theoretically related constructs and how reliable they are, seems vital to make informed judgements about current findings and future studies. In this preregistered study, 168 participants (81 self-identified men, 87 women) completed emotional face versions of these tasks as well as an alternative, foraging-based paradigm, the approach-avoidance-conflict task, and answered self-report questionnaires regarding anxiety, aggression, depressive symptoms, behavioral inhibition and activation. Importantly, approach-avoidance outcome measures of the two reaction-time-based tasks were unrelated with each other, showed little relation to self-reported interindividual differences and had subpar internal consistencies. In contrast, the approach-avoidance-conflict task was related to behavioral inhibition and aggression, and had good internal consistencies. Our study highlights the need for more research into optimizing behavioral approach-avoidance measures when using task-based approach-avoidance measures to assess interindividual differences.

Approach avoidance training versus Sham in veterans with alcohol use disorder: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is highly prevalent and commonly co-occurs with other psychiatric disorders among Veterans. Provisional evidence supports the use of Approach Avoidance Training (AAT) - a form of computer-delivered cognitive bias modification designed to target implicit approach bias for alcohol-related cues - as an adjunctive program to treat AUD. However, the extent to which AAT is effective for improving AUD recovery outcomes in outpatient Veteran samples and those with psychiatric comorbidities has been understudied to date. Here we describe a double-blind randomized controlled trial of AAT versus a comparison condition (Sham) being conducted in Veterans with comorbid psychiatric conditions completing outpatient standard care.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-six Veterans currently receiving outpatient treatment for AUD will be recruited for this randomized controlled trial with parallel group assignment. Participants will be randomized to either 6 weeks of AAT (n = 68) or Sham (n = 68) training in conjunction with usual care. Assessments will occur at baseline and 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-baseline. Primary outcome variables will include functional consequences of drinking. Secondary outcome variables will include alcohol consumption, and behavioral indicators of alcohol approach bias. A subset of participants (n = 51) will also complete functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to assess neural response during an alcohol approach bias assessment.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first randomized controlled trial of AAT administered as an adjunctive treatment to standard care in Veterans with AUD and comorbid psychiatric disorders. Additionally, behavioral and neuroimaging data will be used to determine the extent to which AAT targets approach bias for alcohol cues. If effective, AAT may be a promising low-cost adjunctive treatment option for individuals with AUD.

REGISTRY NAME

AAT for Alcohol Use Disorder in Veterans.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05372029; Date of Registration: 5/9/2022.