scholarly journals Spatial Anticipatory Attentional Bias for Threat: Reliable Individual Differences with RT-based Online Measurement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Edward Gladwin ◽  
Matthijs Vink
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
General Population ◽  
Attentional Bias ◽  
Online Measurement ◽  
Emotional Stimuli ◽  
Online Data ◽  
Probe Task ◽  
Significant Bias ◽  
Visual Probe ◽  
Online Data Collection

Cues that predict the future location of emotional stimuli may evoke an anticipatory form of automatic attentional bias. The reliability of this bias towards threat is uncertain: experimental design may need to be optimized or individual differences may simply be relatively noisy in the general population. The current study therefore aimed to determine the split-half reliability of the bias, in a design with fewer factors and more trials than in previous work. A sample of 63 participants was used for analysis, who performed the cued Visual Probe Task online, which aims to measure an anticipatory attentional bias. The overall bias towards threat was tested and split-half reliability was calculated over even and odd blocks. Results showed a significant bias towards threat and a reliability of around .7. The results support systematic individual differences in anticipatory attentional bias and demonstrate that RT-based bias scores, with online data collection, can be reliable.

scholarly journals Measuring Food-Related Attentional Bias

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefania Franja ◽  
Anna E. McCrae ◽  
Tina Jahnel ◽  
Ashley N. Gearhardt ◽  
Stuart G. Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Attentional Bias ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Test Reliability ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Probe Task ◽  
Visual Probe ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Objective: Food-related attentional bias has been defined as the tendency to give preferential attention to food-related stimuli. Attentional bias is of interest as studies have found that increased attentional bias is associated with obesity; others, however, have not. A possible reason for mixed results may be that there is no agreed upon measure of attentional bias: studies differ in both measurement and scoring of attentional bias. Additionally, little is known about the stability of attentional bias over time. The present study aims to compare attentional bias measures generated from commonly used attentional bias tasks and scoring protocols, and to test re-test reliability.Methods: As part of a larger study, 69 participants (67% female) completed two food-related visual probe tasks at baseline: lexical (words as stimuli), and pictorial (pictures as stimuli). Reaction time bias scores (attentional bias scores) for each task were calculated in three different ways: by subtracting the reaction times for the trials where probes replaced (1) neutral stimuli from the trials where the probes replaced all food stimuli, (2) neutral stimuli from the trials where probes replaced high caloric food stimuli, and (3) neutral stimuli from low caloric food stimuli. This resulted in three separate attentional bias scores for each task. These reaction time results were then correlated. The pictorial visual probe task was administered a second time 14-days later to assess test-retest reliability.Results: Regardless of the scoring use, lexical attentional bias scores were minimal, suggesting minimal attentional bias. Pictorial task attentional bias scores were larger, suggesting greater attentional bias. The correlation between the various scores was relatively small (r = 0.13–0.20). Similarly, test-retest reliability for the pictorial task was poor regardless of how the test was scored (r = 0.20–0.41).Conclusion: These results suggest that at least some of the variation in findings across attentional bias studies could be due to differences in the way that attentional bias is measured. Future research may benefit from either combining eye-tracking measurements in addition to reaction times.

scholarly journals Limited generalisation of changes in attentional bias following attentional bias modification with the visual probe task

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 369-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bram Van Bockstaele ◽  
Elske Salemink ◽  
Susan M. Bögels ◽  
Reinout W. Wiers
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Bias ◽  
Attentional Bias Modification ◽  
Probe Task ◽  
Visual Probe ◽  
Bias Modification

scholarly journals Attentional bias modification based on visual probe task: methodological issues, results and clinical relevance

2015 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernanda Machado Lopes ◽  
Keitiline R. Viacava ◽  
Lisiane Bizarro
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Bias ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Additional Treatment ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Specific Class ◽  
Attentional Bias Modification ◽  
Probe Task ◽  
Visual Probe ◽  
Potential Clinical Utility ◽  
Bias Modification

Introduction: Attentional bias, the tendency that a person has to drive or maintain attention to a specific class of stimuli, may play an important role in the etiology and persistence of mental disorders. Attentional bias modification has been studied as a form of additional treatment related to automatic processing. Objectives: This systematic literature review compared and discussed methods, evidence of success and potential clinical applications of studies about attentional bias modification (ABM) using a visual probe task. Methods: The Web of Knowledge, PubMed and PsycInfo were searched using the keywords attentional bias modification, attentional bias manipulation and attentional bias training. We selected empirical studies about ABM training using a visual probe task written in English and published between 2002 and 2014. Results: Fifty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Most (78%) succeeded in training attention in the predicted direction, and in 71% results were generalized to other measures correlated with the symptoms. Conclusions: ABM has potential clinical utility, but to standardize methods and maximize applicability, future studies should include clinical samples and be based on findings of studies about its effectiveness.

scholarly journals A Smartphone App for Attentional Bias Retraining in Smokers: Mixed Methods Pilot Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol C Choo ◽  
Yi Zhuang Tan ◽  
Melvyn W B Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Attentional Bias ◽  
Training Group ◽  
Smartphone App ◽  
Control Group ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Smartphone Apps ◽  
Probe Task ◽  
Visual Probe

BACKGROUND Smoking is a global health threat. Attentional bias influences smoking behaviors. Although attentional bias retraining has shown benefits and recent advances in technology suggest that attentional bias retraining can be delivered via smartphone apps, there is a paucity of research on this topic. OBJECTIVE This study aims to address this gap by exploring the use of attentional bias retraining via a novel smartphone app using a mixed methods pilot study. In the quantitative phase, it is hypothesized that participants in the training group who undertake attentional bias retraining via the app should have decreased levels of attentional bias, subjective craving, and smoking frequency, compared with those in the control group who do not undertake attentional bias retraining. The qualitative phase explores how the participants perceive and experience the novel app. METHODS In all, 10 adult smokers (3 females and 7 males) between the ages of 26 and 56 years (mean 34.4 years, SD 9.97 years) were recruited. The participants were randomly allocated to the training and control groups. In weeks 1 and 3, participants from both groups attempted the standard visual probe task and rated their smoking frequency and subjective craving. In week 2, the participants in the training group attempted the modified visual probe task. After week 3, participants from both groups were interviewed about their views and experiences of the novel app. RESULTS The results of the quantitative analysis did not support this study’s hypothesis. The qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The results yielded 5 themes: ease, helpfulness, unhelpful aspects, barriers, and refinement. CONCLUSIONS Findings from the qualitative study were consistent with those from previous studies on health-related smartphone apps. The qualitative results were helpful in understanding the user perspectives and experiences of the novel app, indicating that future research in this innovative area is necessary. CLINICALTRIAL

Attentional bias to threat in the general population is contingent on target competition, not on attentional control settings

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 975-988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedikt Emanuel Wirth ◽  
Dirk Wentura
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Attentional Bias ◽  
Attentional Control ◽  
Attentional Control Setting ◽  
Contingent Capture ◽  
Dot Probe ◽  
Attentional Control Settings ◽  
Probe Task ◽  
Control Setting ◽  
Single Target

Dot-probe studies usually find an attentional bias towards threatening stimuli only in anxious participants. Here, we investigated under what conditions such a bias occurs in unselected samples. According to contingent-capture theory, an irrelevant cue only captures attention if it matches an attentional control setting. Therefore, we first tested the hypothesis that an attentional control setting tuned to threat must be activated in (non-anxious) individuals. In Experiment 1, we used a dot-probe task with a manipulation of attentional control settings (‘threat’ – set vs. control set). Surprisingly, we found an (anxiety-independent) attentional bias to angry faces that was not moderated by attentional control settings. Since we presented two stimuli (i.e., a target and a distractor) on the target screen in Experiment 1 (a necessity to realise the test of contingent capture), but most dot-probe studies only employ a single target, we conducted Experiment 2 to test the hypothesis that attentional bias in the general population is contingent on target competition. Participants performed a dot-probe task, involving presentation of a stand-alone target or a target competing with a distractor. We found an (anxiety-independent) attentional bias towards angry faces in the latter but not the former condition. This suggests that attentional bias towards angry faces in unselected samples is not contingent on attentional control settings but on target competition.

scholarly journals Experimental Control of Conflict in a Predictive Visual Probe Task: Highly Reliable Bias Scores Related to Anxiety

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Edward Gladwin ◽  
Monika Halls ◽  
Matthijs Vink
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Bias ◽  
Multiple Testing ◽  
High Reliability ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Bias Score ◽  
Probe Task ◽  
Visual Probe ◽  
Face Stimuli ◽  
Angry Face

Concerns have been raised about the low reliability of measurements of spatial attentional bias via RT differences in dot-probe tasks. The anticipatory form of the bias, directed towards predicted future stimuli, appears to have relatively good reliability, reaching around .70. However, studies thus far have not attempted to experimentally control task-related influence on bias, which could further improve reliability. Evoking top-down versus bottom-up conflict may furthermore reveal associations with individual differences related to mental health. In the current study, a sample of 143 participants performed a predictive Visual Probe Task (predVPT) with angry and neutral face stimuli online. In this task, an automatic bias is induced via visually neutral cues that predict the location of an upcoming angry face. A task-relevant bias was induced via blockwise shifts in the likely location of target stimuli. The bias score resulting from these factors was calculated as RTs to target stimuli at locations of predicted but not actually presented angry versus neutral faces. Correlations were tested with anxiety, depression, self-esteem and aggression scales. An overall bias towards threat was found with a split-half reliability of.90, and .89 after outlier removal. Avoidance of threat in blocks with a task-relevant bias away from threat was correlated with anxiety, with correction for multiple testing. The same relationship was nominally significant for depression and low self-esteem. In conclusion, we showed high reliability of spatial attentional bias that was related to anxiety.

scholarly journals A Smartphone App for Attentional Bias Retraining in Smokers: Mixed Methods Pilot Study

10.2196/22582 ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e22582
Author(s):  
Carol C Choo ◽  
Yi Zhuang Tan ◽  
Melvyn W B Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Attentional Bias ◽  
Training Group ◽  
Smartphone App ◽  
Control Group ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Smartphone Apps ◽  
Probe Task ◽  
Visual Probe

Background Smoking is a global health threat. Attentional bias influences smoking behaviors. Although attentional bias retraining has shown benefits and recent advances in technology suggest that attentional bias retraining can be delivered via smartphone apps, there is a paucity of research on this topic. Objective This study aims to address this gap by exploring the use of attentional bias retraining via a novel smartphone app using a mixed methods pilot study. In the quantitative phase, it is hypothesized that participants in the training group who undertake attentional bias retraining via the app should have decreased levels of attentional bias, subjective craving, and smoking frequency, compared with those in the control group who do not undertake attentional bias retraining. The qualitative phase explores how the participants perceive and experience the novel app. Methods In all, 10 adult smokers (3 females and 7 males) between the ages of 26 and 56 years (mean 34.4 years, SD 9.97 years) were recruited. The participants were randomly allocated to the training and control groups. In weeks 1 and 3, participants from both groups attempted the standard visual probe task and rated their smoking frequency and subjective craving. In week 2, the participants in the training group attempted the modified visual probe task. After week 3, participants from both groups were interviewed about their views and experiences of the novel app. Results The results of the quantitative analysis did not support this study’s hypothesis. The qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The results yielded 5 themes: ease, helpfulness, unhelpful aspects, barriers, and refinement. Conclusions Findings from the qualitative study were consistent with those from previous studies on health-related smartphone apps. The qualitative results were helpful in understanding the user perspectives and experiences of the novel app, indicating that future research in this innovative area is necessary.

scholarly journals Predictive attentional bias modification induces stimulus-evoked attentional bias for threat

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 479-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Gladwin ◽  
Martin Möbius ◽  
Eni S. Becker
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Bias ◽  
Attentional Biases ◽  
Cognitive Response ◽  
Attentional Bias Modification ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Probe Task ◽  
Visual Probe ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Primary Test ◽  
Bias Modification

Attentional Bias Modification (ABM) aims to modulate attentional biases, but questions remain about its efficacy and there may be new variants yet to explore. The current study tested effects of a novel version of ABM, predictive ABM (predABM), using visually neutral cues predicting the locations of future threatening and neutral stimuli that had a chance of appearing after a delay. Such effects could also help understand anticipatory attentional biases measured using cued Visual Probe Tasks. One hundred and two participants completed the experiment online. We tested whether training Towards Threat versus Away from Threat contingencies on the predABM would cause subsequent attentional biases towards versus away from threat versus neutral stimuli, respectively. Participants were randomly assigned and compared on attentional bias measured via a post-training Dot-Probe task. A significant difference was found between the attentional bias in the Towards Threat versus Away from Threat group. The training contingencies induced effects on bias in the expected direction, although the bias in each group separately did not reach significance. Stronger effects may require multiple training sessions. Nevertheless, the primary test confirmed the hypothesis, showing that the predABM is a potentially interesting variant of ABM. Theoretically, the results show that automatization may involve the process of selecting the outcome of a cognitive response, rather than a simple stimulus-response association. Training based on contingencies involving predicted stimuli affect subsequent attentional measures and could be of interest in future clinical studies.

scholarly journals The relationship between worry and attentional bias to threat cues signalling controllable and uncontrollable dangers

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. e0251350
Author(s):  
Jessie Georgiades ◽  
Kelly Cusworth ◽  
Colin MacLeod ◽  
Lies Notebaert
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Attentional Bias ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Everyday Functioning ◽  
Probe Task ◽  
Personal Action ◽  
Threat Cues ◽  
The Relationship

People vary in the frequency with which they worry and there is large variation in the degree to which this worry disrupts their everyday functioning. Heightened tendency to experience disruptive worry is characterised by an attentional bias towards threat. While this attentional bias is often considered maladaptive, it can be adaptive when it concerns threat cues signalling dangers that can be mitigated through personal action. In this case, the resulting worry may increase the likelihood of this action being taken, with beneficial rather than disruptive consequences for everyday functioning. Thus, depending on its focus, attentional bias to threat could potentially drive worry that is high or low in disruptiveness. The current study addressed this possibility, by testing the novel hypothesis that the degree to which worry is disruptive is a function of the degree to which this attentional bias concerns all threat cues, rather than being restricted to threat cues signalling controllable dangers. Participants completed a novel probe task assessing their attention to threat cues signalling a future danger that could be controlled on some blocks, but not on others. Thus, the task revealed the degree to which their selective attention to threat cues was ‘aligned’ with danger controllability, by being more evident on blocks that permitted participant control of the danger signalled by the threat cues. The results indicate, contradicting the hypothesis under test, participants who reported high levels of disruptive worry demonstrated alignment of attentional bias to variations in danger controllability, whereas this was not the case for participants who reported high levels of non-disruptive worry. While caution is needed in the interpretation of the results due to methodological limitations, this study provides a new conceptual and methodological framework for future research on the attentional basis of individual differences in the tendency to experience disruptive vs non-disruptive worry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document