Skip to content

Approach-Avoidance Conflict-a Multi-level Predictor for Therapy Response

Approach-Avoidance Conflict-a Multi-level Predictor for Therapy Response

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02807480
Enrollment
121
Registered
2016-06-21
Start date
2016-06-30
Completion date
2022-03-04
Last updated
2024-03-26

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Brief summary

This project aims to identify brain and behavioral characteristics of individuals experiencing symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder that will predict the effectiveness of Exposure-based therapy versus Behavioral Activation Therapy. Brain imaging aspects of the study will use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG). Behavioral assessments will include self-report questionnaires, computer-based and observational tasks, and interviews. Assessments will focus on how individuals process positive information (such as reward) and negative information (such as distressing images), as well as how people make decisions. These assessments will be conducted across 2-3 in-person sessions prior to beginning the treatment, and will be repeated across 2-3 in-person sessions after completing treatment. A blood draw will also be conducted pre- and post- treatment. Both the Exposure-based and Behavior Activation therapy will consist of 10, 90-minute weekly therapy sessions conducted in small groups.

Detailed description

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is the most common anxiety disorder in primary care, with lifetime prevalence rates of 6%. GAD leads to significant individual and socioeconomic burden (e.g., due to days lost at work and increased health care utilization). Although there is significant comorbidity with major depressive disorder (MDD), a GAD diagnosis conveys a much poorer prognosis, with only 58% with GAD vs. 80% with MDD alone obtaining remission in two years. This highlights the importance of effectively treating GAD, for improving mental and physical health and decreasing socioeconomic burden. First-line treatments include medication (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors \[SSRIs\]) and psychotherapy (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy \[CBT\]). While both are superior to placebo, only 40-60% experience significant improvement, with at least 25% relapsing within a year. Thus, long-lasting improvements are occurring in less than 50% of patients. This ineffectiveness has been moderately associated with symptom severity, illness duration, and comorbidity, but these findings do not provide any strategies for improving treatment effectiveness. The current study will seek to identify behavioral or cognitive-affective predictors that indicate how well a patient is responding to treatment so that interventions can be further individualized to more effectively treat refractory patients. The overall aim of this study are to identify whether neural, biological, and behavioral responses related to the arbitration of conflicting avoidance and approach drives can predict response to Exposure-based versus Behavioral Activate therapy for individuals with generalized anxiety disorder (with or without co-morbid major depressive disorder). This will be accomplished using behavioral, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and genetic analyses pre and post Behavioral Activation therapy. Research subjects will include treatment-seeking individuals with clinically significant symptoms of unipolar depression. Diagnosis will be assessed using structured clinical interviews. Anxious and depressive symptom severity, personality characteristics, and general functioning will be collected via self-report paper-and-pencil questionnaires. Objective measures of approach, avoidance, and conflict behavioral responses will be collected using computer-administered testing and related neural responsivity will be measured using fMRI. For exploratory aims, a blood draw will be collect pre and post-treatment to examine genetic factors that may predict response to behavior therapy. This research has the potential to identify neural and behavioral approach-avoidance characteristics that can help predict which patients are likely to respond to Exposure-based versus Behavioral Activation therapy (i.e., predictors of treatment effectiveness) and reveal targets for future treatment modifications. Aim 1: Examine relationships among approach-avoidance behavior and neural responses, and baseline GAD symptom severity. Hypothesis 1.1: Approach and conflict arbitration behavior will explain significant variance in baseline symptoms above and beyond avoidance-related behavior. Hypothesis 1.2: Approach (striatum) and conflict arbitration (lateral PFC) neural activity will explain significant variance in baseline symptoms above and beyond avoidance-related (amygdala) neural activity. Aim 2: Examine how multi-level approach-avoidance behavior and neural responses predict individualized response to Exposure-based therapy for GAD (compared to Behavioral Activation). Hypothesis 2.1: Approach-related and conflict arbitration behavior will help predict treatment response above and beyond avoidance-related behavior and baseline symptom severity. Hypothesis 2.2: Activity in approach-related and conflict arbitration neural circuitry will predict treatment response above and beyond activity in avoidance-related neural circuitry. Aim 3: Identify the changes in approach-avoidance processes that relate to Exposure therapy elicited functional improvement (compared to Behavioral Activation). Hypothesis 3.1: The degree to which conflict arbitration abilities increase with treatment will positively relate to functional improvement from pre- to post-treatment. The statistical analysis plan was described within a protocol paper published in 2020 (Santiago et al., 2020), which is cited in the References section.

Interventions

Exposure-based therapy

Behavioral Activation therapy

BEHAVIORALComputer-based behavioral assessment

Computer-based tasks during which participants respond to images on the screen, including abstract images, emotional faces, and pleasant and unpleasant images.

Surveys and interviews in which participants will be asked to answer questions related to their mental and physical health history and current symptoms.

DEVICEMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) will be used to obtain information concerning the structure of the brain, as well as to assess changes associated with blood flow in the brain while participants are completing behavioral tasks (see description of computer-based behavioral assessment intervention).

DEVICEElectroencephalography (EEG)

Electroencephalography (EEG) will be used to assess changes in the electrical activity of the brain while participants are completing behavioral tasks (see description of computer-based behavioral assessment intervention).

Sponsors

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
CollaboratorNIH
Laureate Institute for Brain Research, Inc.
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 55 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. Age: 18-55 2. All genders 3. All races 4. Eligibility as clinically significant anxiety will be determined by: * Scoring greater than 7 on the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS) or greater than 10 on the generalized anxiety disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7) and/or diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. * Self-report that they are interested in obtaining treatment for anxiety. * Anxiety symptoms are the primary disorder of concern. 5. Able to provide written, informed consent 6. Have sufficient proficiency in English language to understand and complete interviews, questionnaires, and all other study procedures

Exclusion criteria

1. Has a history of unstable liver or renal insufficiency; glaucoma; significant and unstable cardiac, vascular, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, endocrine, neurologic, hematologic, rheumatologic, or metabolic disturbance; or any other condition that would make participation not be in the best interest (e.g., compromise the well-being) of the subject or that could prevent, limit, or confound the protocol-specified assessments. 2. A history of drug or alcohol abuse in the past 6 months, 3. Has any of the following diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM-5) disorders: * Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders * Bipolar and Related Disorders * Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders * Anorexia or Bulimia Nervosa * Substance use disorder within 6 months 4. Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (\>30 min. loss of consciousness or \>24 hours posttraumatic amnesia) or other neurocognitive disorder with evidence of neurological deficits, neurological disorders, or severe or unstable medical conditions that might be compromised by participation in the study. 5. Active suicidal ideation with intent or plan 6. Current use of a medication that could affect brain functioning (e.g., anxiolytics, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers). However, participants reporting current use of prescribed antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors \[SSRIs\]) will be included as long as the dose has been stable for 6 weeks prior to enrolling in the study. 7. Prescription of a medication outside of the accepted range, as determined by the best clinical practices and current research 8. Taking drugs that affect the fMRI hemodynamic response. 9. MRI contraindications including: cardiac pacemaker, metal fragments in eyes/skin/body (shrapnel), aortic/aneurysm clips, prosthesis, by-pass surgery/coronary artery clips, hearing aid, heart valve replacement, shunt (ventricular or spinal), electrodes, metal plates/pins/screws/wires, or neuro/bio-stimulators (TENS unit), persons who have ever been a professional metal worker/welder, history of eye surgery/eyes washed out because of metal, vision problems uncorrectable with lenses, inability to lie still on one's back for 60-120 minutes; prior neurosurgery; tattoos or cosmetic makeup with metal dyes, unwillingness to remove body piercings, and pregnancy 10. Unwillingness or inability to complete any of the major aspects of the study protocol, including magnetic resonance imaging (i.e., due to claustrophobia), blood draws, or behavioral assessment. However, failing to complete some individual aspects of these assessment sessions will be acceptable (i.e., being unwilling to answer individual items on some questionnaires or being unwilling to complete a behavioral task) 11. Non-correctable vision or hearing problems 12. Report of severe depressive symptoms, as indicated by a score greater than 17 on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9).

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
For Aim1: Baseline Generalized Anxiety Disorder Symptoms as Measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 Item Scale (GAD-7).Baseline assessment (one time point)Test the relationship between imaging and behavioral factors and the level of symptoms at baseline assessment. Scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 item scale (GAD-7) range from 0 to 21, higher scores reflect greater symptom severity.
For Aims 2 and 3: Change in Generalized Anxiety Disorder Symptoms as Measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 Item Scale (GAD-7).Trajectory of change from pre- to post- treatment; last time point assessed within 6 weeks following last treatment session, on average at 16 weeks after baseline assessment.Test the predictive effects of imaging and behavioral factors on change in symptoms at baseline compared to within 6 weeks after completing treatment. Scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 item scale (GAD-7) range from 0 to 21, higher scores reflect greater symptom severity.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in Level of Disability as Measured by the Sheehan Disability ScaleTrajectory of change from pre- to post- treatment; last time point assessed within 6 weeks following last treatment session, on average at 16 weeks after baseline assessmentTest the predictive effects of imaging and behavioral factors on change in symptoms at baseline compared to within 6 weeks after completing treatment. The Sheehan Disability Scale assesses functional impairment in the domains of work/school, social life, and family life. Participants are provided with a 0-10 visual analog scale with spatiovisual, numeric, and descriptive anchors and asked to rate the extent to which their symptoms have interfered with their functioning on each item for total score ranges of 0-30. Higher scores indicate greater impairment.
Change in Anxiety Symptoms as Measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety Scale.Trajectory of change from pre- to post- treatment; last time point assessed within 6 weeks following last treatment session, on average at 16 weeks after baseline assessmentTest the predictive effects of imaging and behavioral factors on change in symptoms at baseline compared to within 6 weeks after completing treatment. The PROMIS Anxiety Scale yields t-scores, higher scores indicate greater symptom severity, with 50 indicating the population mean and a standard deviation of 10.
Depressive Symptoms as Measured by the Beck Depression Inventory - II.Post- treatment; last time point assessed within 6 weeks following last treatment session, on average at 16 weeks after baseline assessmentTest the predictive effects of imaging and behavioral factors on symptoms at post-treatment (within 6 weeks after completing treatment), covarying for baseline symptom severity. The BDI-II is a 21-item questionnaire, with each individual item being rated from 0-3 in a list of four statements arranged in increasing severity about a particular symptom of depression. The outcome measure is the total score on the BDI-II, which is the sum of all 21 items. Higher scores equate to greater severity of depression symptoms. Total score of 0-13 is considered minimal range, 14-19 is mild, 20-28 is moderate, and 29-63 is severe.
Worry Symptoms as Measured by the Penn State Worry QuestionnairePost- treatment; last time point assessed within 6 weeks following last treatment session, on average at 16 weeks after baseline assessmentTest the predictive effects of imaging and behavioral factors on post-treatment symptoms (within 6 weeks after completing treatment), covarying for baseline symptom severity. The PSWQ is a 16-item self-report scale designed to measure the trait of worry in adults. Scores range from 16 to 80 with higher scores indicative of higher levels of trait worry. Scores of 66 or greater are thought to indicate clinically significant worry.
Change in Depressive Symptoms as Measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression Scale.Trajectory of change from pre- to post- treatment; last time point assessed within 6 weeks following last treatment session, on average at 16 weeks after baseline assessmentTest the predictive effects of imaging and behavioral factors on change in symptoms at baseline compared to within 6 weeks after completing treatment. The PROMIS Depression scale yields t-scores; higher scores indicate greater symptom severity, with population mean being 50 and standard deviation of 10.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

After enrollment, participants completed baseline assessments prior to being randomized to a treatment arm. A total of 121 were rolled in the study. Prior to randomization, 27 participants withdrew from the study due to no longer meeting criteria (N=9), indicated being no longer interested in participating (N=8), and other or unknown reasons (N=10), leaving N=94 being randomized and starting treatment.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Exposure-based Therapy
Participants will complete 10, 90-minute sessions of Exposure-based therapy, conducted using a group format. Each group will include 8-12 participants. Exposure-based therapy seeks to increase abilities to manage anxiety through repeated practice in facing the situations or thoughts that are the focus of worry or fear.
46
Behavioral Activation Therapy
Participants will complete 10, 90-minute sessions of Behavioral Activation therapy, conducted using a group format. Each group will include 8-12 participants. Behavioral Activation therapy seeks to target behaviors that might maintain or worsen negative mood.
48
Total94

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject1410

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicExposure-based TherapyBehavioral Activation TherapyTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
46 Participants48 Participants94 Participants
Age, Continuous34.96 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.63
34.27 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.54
34.61 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.53
Education
Associate's degree
4 Participants3 Participants7 Participants
Education
Bachelor's degree
10 Participants16 Participants26 Participants
Education
High school or GED
4 Participants4 Participants8 Participants
Education
Less than high school
1 Participants1 Participants2 Participants
Education
Master's degree
13 Participants10 Participants23 Participants
Education
Professional / doctoral degree
2 Participants0 Participants2 Participants
Education
Some college, no degree
12 Participants14 Participants26 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
2 Participants2 Participants4 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
44 Participants46 Participants90 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
GAD7 Baseline Score12.93 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.62
11.30 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.73
12.12 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.25
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
9 Participants11 Participants20 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
2 Participants0 Participants2 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
1 Participants6 Participants7 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
4 Participants3 Participants7 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
30 Participants27 Participants57 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
46 participants48 participants94 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
44 Participants38 Participants82 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
2 Participants10 Participants12 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 460 / 48
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 461 / 48
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 460 / 48

Outcome results

Primary

For Aim1: Baseline Generalized Anxiety Disorder Symptoms as Measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 Item Scale (GAD-7).

Test the relationship between imaging and behavioral factors and the level of symptoms at baseline assessment. Scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 item scale (GAD-7) range from 0 to 21, higher scores reflect greater symptom severity.

Time frame: Baseline assessment (one time point)

Population: Participants who 1) had usable pre-treatment fMRI data and 2) completed treatment with at least 7 sessions attended

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exposure-based TherapyFor Aim1: Baseline Generalized Anxiety Disorder Symptoms as Measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 Item Scale (GAD-7).12.85 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.33
Behavioral Activation TherapyFor Aim1: Baseline Generalized Anxiety Disorder Symptoms as Measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 Item Scale (GAD-7).11.62 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.38
p-value: 0.088Pearson correlation
Comparison: Correlation of baseline response time during conflict with baseline GAD-7 scores.p-value: 0.134Pearson correlation
Comparison: Correlation of baseline striatum response to points (reward) with baseline GAD-7 scores.p-value: 0.032Pearson correlation
Comparison: Correlation of baseline right amygdala activity during negative images with baseline GAD7 scoresp-value: 0.375Pearson correlation
Comparison: Correlation of baseline right dlPFC activity during conflict decision-making with baseline GAD-7 scores.p-value: 0.651Pearson correlation
p-value: 0.008Pearson correlation
Primary

For Aims 2 and 3: Change in Generalized Anxiety Disorder Symptoms as Measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 Item Scale (GAD-7).

Test the predictive effects of imaging and behavioral factors on change in symptoms at baseline compared to within 6 weeks after completing treatment. Scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 item scale (GAD-7) range from 0 to 21, higher scores reflect greater symptom severity.

Time frame: Trajectory of change from pre- to post- treatment; last time point assessed within 6 weeks following last treatment session, on average at 16 weeks after baseline assessment.

Population: Participants who had usable baseline fMRI data and completed treatment. Outcome measure data entered for post-treatment timepoint or last timepoint collected.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exposure-based TherapyFor Aims 2 and 3: Change in Generalized Anxiety Disorder Symptoms as Measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 Item Scale (GAD-7).8.48 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.2
Behavioral Activation TherapyFor Aims 2 and 3: Change in Generalized Anxiety Disorder Symptoms as Measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 Item Scale (GAD-7).5.90 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.97
Comparison: Assess left amygdala response to positive picture decision outcomes as a predictor of GAD-7 symptom improvement: time x L. Amyg x treatment-arm interactionp-value: 0.00795% CI: [-2.62, -0.41]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Baseline approach behavior during conflict trials predicting trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time main effectp-value: 0.23895% CI: [-0.24, 0.97]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship between baseline approach behavior on conflict trials and the trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time x treatment interaction effectp-value: 0.26295% CI: [-1.36, 0.37]Regression, Linear
Comparison: relationship between baseline response time on conflict trials and trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time main effectsp-value: 0.22295% CI: [-1.44, 6.19]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time x treatment interaction effectp-value: 0.94295% CI: [-6.48, 6.02]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effectsp-value: 0.93295% CI: [-1.2, 1.1]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction effectsp-value: 0.92295% CI: [-1.7, 1.53]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effectsp-value: 0.99895% CI: [-0.99, 0.99]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interactionp-value: 0.23495% CI: [-2.34, 0.57]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right dlPFC activity during conflict decisions with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effectsp-value: 0.96795% CI: [-1.53, 1.47]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right dlPFC activity during conflict decision-making with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction effectp-value: 0.50495% CI: [-1.43, 2.91]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in conflict arbitration (AAC conflict RTpost-RTpre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_Change interactionp-value: 0.61295% CI: [-8.21, 4.84]Regression, Linear
Comparison: change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RTpost-RTpre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over 10 sessions: RT\_Change x Time x Treatment interactionp-value: 0.25995% CI: [-3.76, 13.92]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) in predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interactionp-value: 0.20995% CI: [-1.35, 0.3]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) in predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change x Treatment interactionp-value: 0.01395% CI: [0.33, 2.73]Regression, Linear
Secondary

Change in Anxiety Symptoms as Measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety Scale.

Test the predictive effects of imaging and behavioral factors on change in symptoms at baseline compared to within 6 weeks after completing treatment. The PROMIS Anxiety Scale yields t-scores, higher scores indicate greater symptom severity, with 50 indicating the population mean and a standard deviation of 10.

Time frame: Trajectory of change from pre- to post- treatment; last time point assessed within 6 weeks following last treatment session, on average at 16 weeks after baseline assessment

Population: Participants who had usable baseline fMRI data and completed treatment. Outcome measure data entered for post-treatment timepoint or last timepoint collected.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exposure-based TherapyChange in Anxiety Symptoms as Measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety Scale.60.68 T-scoreStandard Deviation 5.86
Behavioral Activation TherapyChange in Anxiety Symptoms as Measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety Scale.55.98 T-scoreStandard Deviation 7.23
Comparison: Baseline emotional conflict, a computational parameter reflecting avoidance relative to reward value, as a predictor of the linear trajectory of symptom change over time: time x EC interactionp-value: 0.00695% CI: [-5.06, -0.84]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Assess avoidance behavior on conflict trials as a predictor of PROMIS Anxiety symptom improvement: time x avoidance interactionp-value: 0.00395% CI: [-1.68, -0.36]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Assess left dlPFC response to baseline negative picture decision outcomes as a predictor of PROMIS Anxiety symptom improvement: time x L. dlPFC interactionp-value: 0.00795% CI: [-2.89, -0.87]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptomsp-value: 0.00395% CI: [0.36, 1.68]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interactionp-value: 0.25895% CI: [-1.48, 0.4]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x approach behavior interactionp-value: 0.5695% CI: [-3.08, 5.69]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average RT (response time) during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x treatment x RT interactionp-value: 0.62995% CI: [-8.95, 5.41]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS ANXIETY trajectory: time x striatum interaction effectsp-value: 0.7595% CI: [-1.51, 1.09]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment x striatum interaction effectsp-value: 0.16995% CI: [-0.54, 3.09]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x amygdala interactionp-value: 0.79295% CI: [-1, 1.31]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interactionp-value: 0.39695% CI: [-2.41, 0.96]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x dlPFC interactionp-value: 0.00995% CI: [-2.7, -0.4]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment dlPFC interactionp-value: 0.72495% CI: [-1.28, 1.84]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interactionp-value: 0.20995% CI: [-12.79, 2.8]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interactionp-value: 0.01795% CI: [2.23, 23.13]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interactionp-value: 0.25995% CI: [-1.59, 0.43]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interactionp-value: 0.1595% CI: [-0.39, 2.54]Regression, Linear
Secondary

Change in Depressive Symptoms as Measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression Scale.

Test the predictive effects of imaging and behavioral factors on change in symptoms at baseline compared to within 6 weeks after completing treatment. The PROMIS Depression scale yields t-scores; higher scores indicate greater symptom severity, with population mean being 50 and standard deviation of 10.

Time frame: Trajectory of change from pre- to post- treatment; last time point assessed within 6 weeks following last treatment session, on average at 16 weeks after baseline assessment

Population: Participants who had usable baseline fMRI data and completed treatment. Outcome measure data entered for post-treatment timepoint or last timepoint collected.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exposure-based TherapyChange in Depressive Symptoms as Measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression Scale.53.70 T-scoreStandard Deviation 6.87
Behavioral Activation TherapyChange in Depressive Symptoms as Measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression Scale.52.12 T-scoreStandard Deviation 4.73
Comparison: Assess emotional conflict, a computational parameter reflecting avoidance relative to reward value, as a predictor of PROMIS Depression scores. Time x EC interaction.p-value: 0.00195% CI: [-5.57, -1.47]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Baseline left dlPFC response to negative pictures as a predictor of PROMIS depression symptom improvement: time x L. dlFPC interaction.p-value: <0.00195% CI: [-2.91, -0.95]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Baseline striatum response to monetary outcomes as a predictor of improvement in depressive symptoms: time x treatment x striatum interaction.p-value: 0.03695% CI: [-3.9, -0.13]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x approach behavior interactionp-value: <0.00195% CI: [-1.85, -0.58]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interactionp-value: 0.04995% CI: [-1.81, 0]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x RT interactionp-value: 0.77895% CI: [-3.6, 4.81]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x treatment x RT interactionp-value: 0.69695% CI: [-5.56, 8.31]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x striatum interaction effectsp-value: 0.50395% CI: [-0.84, 1.71]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x amygdala interactionp-value: 0.11495% CI: [-2.02, 0.22]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interactionp-value: 0.56195% CI: [-1.15, 2.11]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x dlPFC interactionp-value: 0.00795% CI: [-2.66, -0.42]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x treatment dlPFC interactionp-value: 0.40395% CI: [-0.87, 2.17]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interactionp-value: 0.68195% CI: [-8.76, 5.73]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interactionp-value: 0.26495% CI: [-4.24, 15.46]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interactionp-value: 0.36795% CI: [-1.38, 0.51]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interactionp-value: 0.21195% CI: [-0.5, 2.25]Regression, Linear
Secondary

Change in Level of Disability as Measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale

Test the predictive effects of imaging and behavioral factors on change in symptoms at baseline compared to within 6 weeks after completing treatment. The Sheehan Disability Scale assesses functional impairment in the domains of work/school, social life, and family life. Participants are provided with a 0-10 visual analog scale with spatiovisual, numeric, and descriptive anchors and asked to rate the extent to which their symptoms have interfered with their functioning on each item for total score ranges of 0-30. Higher scores indicate greater impairment.

Time frame: Trajectory of change from pre- to post- treatment; last time point assessed within 6 weeks following last treatment session, on average at 16 weeks after baseline assessment

Population: Participants who had usable baseline fMRI data and completed treatment. Outcome measure data entered for post-treatment timepoint or last timepoint collected.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exposure-based TherapyChange in Level of Disability as Measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale8.93 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.11
Behavioral Activation TherapyChange in Level of Disability as Measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale5.36 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.47
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS score: time x approach behavior interactionp-value: 0.02895% CI: [0.08, 1.41]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interactionp-value: 0.25195% CI: [-1.49, 0.39]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x RT interactionp-value: 0.90295% CI: [-4.49, 3.96]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x treatment x RT interactionp-value: 0.51995% CI: [-4.55, 9.01]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with SDS trajectory: time x striatum interaction effectsp-value: 0.32695% CI: [-1.92, 0.64]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with SDS trajectory: time x treatment x striatum interaction effectsp-value: 0.16895% CI: [-0.53, 3.05]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x amygdala interactionp-value: 0.24895% CI: [-1.34, 0.35]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interactionp-value: 0.60395% CI: [-0.84, 1.44]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x dlPFC interactionp-value: 0.10795% CI: [-1.89, 0.18]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x treatment x dlPFC interactionp-value: 0.84695% CI: [-1.47, 1.8]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interactionp-value: 0.56195% CI: [-9.89, 5.37]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interactionp-value: 0.29795% CI: [-4.8, 15.7]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS cores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interactionp-value: 0.71295% CI: [-1.15, 0.79]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interactionp-value: 0.43195% CI: [-0.84, 1.97]Regression, Linear
Secondary

Depressive Symptoms as Measured by the Beck Depression Inventory - II.

Test the predictive effects of imaging and behavioral factors on symptoms at post-treatment (within 6 weeks after completing treatment), covarying for baseline symptom severity. The BDI-II is a 21-item questionnaire, with each individual item being rated from 0-3 in a list of four statements arranged in increasing severity about a particular symptom of depression. The outcome measure is the total score on the BDI-II, which is the sum of all 21 items. Higher scores equate to greater severity of depression symptoms. Total score of 0-13 is considered minimal range, 14-19 is mild, 20-28 is moderate, and 29-63 is severe.

Time frame: Post- treatment; last time point assessed within 6 weeks following last treatment session, on average at 16 weeks after baseline assessment

Population: Participants who had usable baseline fMRI data and completed treatment. Outcome measure data entered for post-treatment timepoint or last timepoint collected.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exposure-based TherapyDepressive Symptoms as Measured by the Beck Depression Inventory - II.13.56 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.95
Behavioral Activation TherapyDepressive Symptoms as Measured by the Beck Depression Inventory - II.9.68 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.64
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: approach behavior main effectp-value: 0.35795% CI: [-3.22, 1.19]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: treatment x approach behavior interactionp-value: 0.81295% CI: [-2.74, 3.47]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: RT main effectp-value: 0.82695% CI: [-16.42, 20.45]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: treatment x RT interactionp-value: 0.83895% CI: [-31.42, 25.64]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with BDI-II post-treatment: striatum main effectp-value: 0.77695% CI: [-5.51, 4.14]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x striatum interaction effectsp-value: 0.84495% CI: [-7.79, 6.4]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: amygdala main effectp-value: 0.71995% CI: [-4.03, 5.79]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x amygdala interactionp-value: 0.46495% CI: [-8.74, 4.07]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: dlPFC main effectp-value: 0.13595% CI: [-1.93, 13.75]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x dlPFC interactionp-value: 0.15895% CI: [-14.65, 2.47]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II cores over the 10 sessions: Behavior\_change main effectp-value: 0.6995% CI: [-4.78, 7.11]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x Behavior\_change interactionp-value: 0.71595% CI: [-8.99, 6.25]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: RT\_change main effectp-value: 0.7495% CI: [-26.38, 36.65]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x RT\_change interactionp-value: 0.96695% CI: [-48.1, 46.14]Regression, Linear
Secondary

Worry Symptoms as Measured by the Penn State Worry Questionnaire

Test the predictive effects of imaging and behavioral factors on post-treatment symptoms (within 6 weeks after completing treatment), covarying for baseline symptom severity. The PSWQ is a 16-item self-report scale designed to measure the trait of worry in adults. Scores range from 16 to 80 with higher scores indicative of higher levels of trait worry. Scores of 66 or greater are thought to indicate clinically significant worry.

Time frame: Post- treatment; last time point assessed within 6 weeks following last treatment session, on average at 16 weeks after baseline assessment

Population: Participants who had usable baseline fMRI data and completed treatment. Outcome measure data entered for post-treatment timepoint or last timepoint collected.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exposure-based TherapyWorry Symptoms as Measured by the Penn State Worry Questionnaire64.26 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.29
Behavioral Activation TherapyWorry Symptoms as Measured by the Penn State Worry Questionnaire56.29 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.59
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment PSWQ score: approach behavior main effectp-value: 0.27695% CI: [-18.15, 5.3]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment PSWQ score: treatment x approach behavior interactionp-value: 0.5295% CI: [-12.12, 23.5]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PSWQ score: RT main effectp-value: 0.19995% CI: [-127.65, 27.65]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PSWQ score: treatment x RT interactionp-value: 0.19195% CI: [-4.14, 236.88]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PSWQ trajectory: striatum main effectp-value: 0.02195% CI: [4.45, 50.26]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment x striatum interaction effectsp-value: 0.73495% CI: [-37.94, 27]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: amygdala main effectp-value: 0.23195% CI: [-26.11, 6.53]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment amygdala interactionp-value: 0.60295% CI: [-24.48, 41.58]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: dlPFC main effectp-value: 0.36995% CI: [-62.07, 23.68]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment x dlPFC interactionp-value: 0.68495% CI: [-36.05, 54.29]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ cores over the 10 sessions: Behavior\_change main effectp-value: 0.48795% CI: [-18.39, 37.59]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x Behavior\_change interactionp-value: 0.03395% CI: [-88.5, -4.18]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: RT\_change main effectp-value: 0.54695% CI: [-94.2, 173.85]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x RT\_change interactionp-value: 0.44395% CI: [-327.39, 147.67]Regression, Linear

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 19, 2026