THINK Back statistics

To access cutting-edge analytics on consensus tools, life science contexts and associated fields, you will need to subscribe to our premium service.


Citations per year

Citations chart

Popular tool citations

chevron_left Topology enrichment analysis chevron_right
Popular tools chart

Tool usage distribution map

Tool usage distribution map

Associated diseases

Associated diseases

THINK Back specifications


Unique identifier OMICS_12651
Name THINK Back
Software type Toolkit/Suite
Interface Graphical user interface
Restrictions to use None
Operating system Unix/Linux, Mac OS, Windows
Programming languages Java
Computer skills Medium
Stability Stable
Source code URL
Maintained Yes



Add your version


  • person_outline Fernando Farfán <>

Publication for THINK Back

THINK Back in publications

PMCID: 5854435
PMID: 29543890
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194627

[…] negative) to +3 (very positive). we averaged these two ratings into one explicit rating score (cronbach’s alpha = .63)., after the implicit and explicit evaluation tasks, participants were asked to think back to the warning label that they saw at the beginning of the study and rate how effective they thought this label would be at reducing smoking. participants gave their effectiveness ratings […]

PMCID: 5837369
PMID: 29536988
DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S160915

[…] a short quiz before and after the course is not a good tool to use for many reasons. the first is that this can also act to demotivate students attending sessions; we implore the authors to think back to any lecturers that employed similar tools. furthermore, in addition to wasting valuable time, such techniques are fraught with bias through question selection and may influence […]

PMCID: 5863506
PMID: 29599732
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00219

[…] bring together different events and periods in their life, with no interest in their memory of particular events. first, two baseline questions are presented to assess people's overall tendency to think back or talk about their life. responses are given on a 5-point likert-type scale, with 1 = almost never to 5 = very frequently. subsequently, and using the same scale, participants indicate […]

PMCID: 5826374
PMID: 29515500
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00188

[…] activities induced by several degrees of performance orientation (i.e., specialised sampling) seems plausible, as many aforementioned results support this insight., whenever humans have to think back and remember specific details of their past, forgetting and uncertainty is inevitable to a certain degree (). participants and their parents had to think back around 6.6 years on average […]

PMCID: 5836276
PMID: 29462404
DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsy012

[…] average anagram accuracy was 3.26 out of 15 with a s.d. of 2.64. , after the stressor, the participants rated their emotion and began a 3 min post-stressor recovery period. they were instructed to ‘think back to the anagram task’ and to ‘engage in any thoughts and feelings that come naturally’ while viewing a video. participants in the positive emotion condition viewed a ‘waves’ video […]

To access a full list of publications, you will need to upgrade to our premium service.

THINK Back institution(s)
Computer Science and Engineering Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; Center for Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
THINK Back funding source(s)
This work was partially supported by the National Institute of Health [1U54DA021519] and the National Library of Medicine [5-R01-LM-010138-02].

THINK Back reviews

star_border star_border star_border star_border star_border
star star star star star

Be the first to review THINK Back