Still connecting the dots: An investigation into infants' attentional bias to threat using an eye‐tracking task

Infancy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sinia Sareen ◽  
Frances L. Doyle ◽  
Lindsay J. Kemp ◽  
Jaimie C. Northam ◽  
Bronte G. Morgan ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 236 (12) ◽  
pp. 3465-3476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte R. Pennington ◽  
Adam W. Qureshi ◽  
Rebecca L. Monk ◽  
Katie Greenwood ◽  
Derek Heim

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Soleymani ◽  
Mazidi ◽  
Renate Niemeijer ◽  
Peter J. de Jong

Cognitive theories of eating disorders implicate Attentional Bias (AB) towards food-related information in the development and maintenance of eating disorders. Empirical evidence for this proposal, however, has been inconsistent and the measures used to examine AB to food-related stimuli typically showed poor reliability. The aim of the current study was twofold. Firstly, we aimed to examine the psychometric properties of a newly devised eye-tracking task for the assessment of AB in the context of eating disorders. Secondly, we examined the role of Eating Disorder-specific (ED-specific) rumination as a potential moderator of the association between attentional bias to food images and eating disorder symptoms. One hundred and three female students were recruited and completed an eye-tracking task comprising 21 matrices that each contained 8 low-caloric and 8 high-caloric food images. Each matrix was presented for 6 s. First fixation location, first fixation latency and total dwell time were assessed for low and high-caloric food images and the dwell-time based AB measure showed good reliability based on Cronbach’s alpha and split-half method. In addition, the results revealed that the ED-specific rumination plays the hypothesized moderating role. Specifically, while participants with high levels of ED-specific rumination exhibited a positive association between AB to high-caloric foods and eating disorder symptoms, this association was eliminated among participants with lower levels of ED-specific rumination. The employed free-viewing task seems a reliable measure of AB to food-related stimuli and the moderation analysis emphasizes the critical role of ED-specific rumination for eating disorder symptoms. Implications, limitations and directions for future research are discussed.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Rebecca Pennington ◽  
Adam Qureshi ◽  
Rebecca Monk ◽  
Derek Heim

Rationale: Experimental tasks that demonstrate alcohol-related attentional bias typically expose participants to single-stimulus targets (e.g., addiction stroop, visual probe, anti-saccade task), which may not correspond fully with real-world contexts where alcoholic and non-alcoholic cues simultaneously compete for attention. Moreover, alcoholic stimuli are rarely matched to other appetitive non-alcoholic stimuli. Objectives: To address these limitations by utilising a conjunction search eye-tracking task and matched stimuli to examine alcohol-related attentional bias. Methods: Thirty social drinkers (Mage = 19.87, SD = 1.74) were asked to detect whether alcoholic (beer), non-alcoholic (water) or non-appetitive (detergent) targets were present or absent amongst a visual array of matching and non-matching distractors. Both behavioural response times and eye-movement dwell time were measured. Results: Social drinkers were significantly quicker to detect alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive targets relative to non-appetitive targets in an array of matching and mismatching distractors. Similarly, proportional dwell time was lower for both alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive distractors relative to non-appetitive distractors, suggesting that appetitive targets were relatively easier to detect. Conclusions: Social drinkers may exhibit generalised attentional bias towards alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive cues. This adds to emergent research suggesting that the mechanisms driving these individual’s attention towards alcoholic cues might ‘spill over’ to other appetitive cues, possibly due to associative learning.


2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 1508
Author(s):  
Qiandong WANG ◽  
Qinggong LI ◽  
Kaikai CHEN ◽  
Genyue FU

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Benjamin C. Mullin ◽  
Jacob B. W. Holzman ◽  
Laura Pyle ◽  
Emmaly L. Perks ◽  
Yaswanth Chintaluru ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Attentional bias to threat has been implicated as a cognitive mechanism in anxiety disorders for youth. Yet, prior studies documenting this bias have largely relied on a method with questionable reliability (i.e. dot-probe task) and small samples, few of which included adolescents. The current study sought to address such limitations by examining relations between anxiety – both clinically diagnosed and dimensionally rated – and attentional bias to threat. Methods The study included a community sample of adolescents and employed eye-tracking methodology intended to capture possible biases across the full range of both automatic (i.e. vigilance bias) and controlled attentional processes (i.e. avoidance bias, maintenance bias). We examined both dimensional anxiety (across the full sample; n = 215) and categorical anxiety in a subset case-control analysis (n = 100) as predictors of biases. Results Findings indicated that participants with an anxiety disorder oriented more slowly to angry faces than matched controls. Results did not suggest a greater likelihood of initial orienting to angry faces among our participants with anxiety disorders or those with higher dimensional ratings of anxiety. Greater anxiety severity was associated with greater dwell time to neutral faces. Conclusions This is the largest study to date examining eye-tracking metrics of attention to threat among healthy and anxious youth. Findings did not support the notion that anxiety is characterized by heightened vigilance or avoidance/maintenance of attention to threat. All effects detected were extremely small. Links between attention to threat and anxiety among adolescents may be subtle and highly dependent on experimental task dimensions.


Author(s):  
Maria C. Bradley ◽  
Donncha Hanna ◽  
Paul Wilson ◽  
Gareth Scott ◽  
Paul Quinn ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
AndreaSabrina Hartmann ◽  
Tiana Borgers ◽  
Jennifer Joanne Thomas ◽  
Claire‐Marie Giabbiconi ◽  
Silja Vocks

2015 ◽  
Vol 104 ◽  
pp. 139-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel T.M. Chen ◽  
Patrick J.F. Clarke ◽  
Tamara L. Watson ◽  
Colin MacLeod ◽  
Adam J. Guastella

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document