Table 1.

Studies Included in Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE)

Source	Active N	Control N	Treatment	Control Condition	Duration/ Dose	Intensity	Task	Direction of Activity
Wykes et al30	6	6	Individualized CRT	Occupational therapy	12/40	3.333	n-Back	↑
Haut et al21	9	9	Working memory training	Cognitive behavioral social skills training	4–6/25	5	n-Back	↑
Habel et al33	10	10	Training of affect recognition	TAU	6/9	1.5	Facial Emotion and Age Recognition Task	↑
Bor et al31	8	9	Rehacom-CRT	TAU	7/28	4	n-Back	↑
Hooker et al29	11	11	Auditory training + social cognition training	Computer game placebo	10/50	5	Emotion Recognition Task	↑↓
Subramaniam et al27	15	14	Auditory and visual training	Computer game placebo	16/90	5.625	Reality Monitoring Task	↑
Hooker et al22	11	11	Auditory training + social cognition training	Computer game placebo	10/50	5	Facial Emotion Recognition Task	↑↓
Vianin et al32	8	8	RECOS CRT	TAU	14/42	3	Verbal Fluency Task	↑
Subramaniam et al28	16	15	Auditory training and visual training	Computer game placebo	16/90	5.625	n-Back	↑

Note: N, subject number; TAU, treatment as usual; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease; CRT, cognitive remediation training. The ALE included a total of 128 subjects (active = 68; control = 60). Participants underwent an average of 40 sessions (dose), an average of 10 weeks of training, and an average treatment intensity of 3.92 (calculated based on “dose” divided by “duration”). The 2 studies each by Hooker and colleagues and Subramaniam and colleagues were counted only once because they constituted the same patient groups. We used the higher N from Subramaniam et al.²⁸ The study by Vianin and colleagues measured time 2 > time 1 in active treatment group only and therefore only active treatment N was included; all others studies measured a Group × Task interaction. Intensity calculated based on dose/duration.