Untitled

Mathews, Andrew; Mackintosh, Bundy

doi:10.1023/a:1018738019346

Cited by 663 publications

(169 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

149

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Trait anxiety may potentially bias both early reflexive input processes, such as alerting or orienting, or later more cognitive processes, such as appraisal, and either could be under the control of WM WORKING MEMORY REGULATES COGNITIVE BIAS IN ANXIETY 16 (Mathews & MacLeod, 2005). Note that input processes could account for interpretive bias, as they could bias the participant's attention toward the more negative aspects of the vignettes (Mathews & Mackintosh, 1998); Ouimet et al (2009) suggest that interpretations are a product of both conscious processing and implicit associations, i.e. they occur later than the input stage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another model which posits a role for cognitive control in cognitive bias is the model of Mathews and Mackintosh (1998), which conceptualises bias as the result of competing representations: representations of the threat stimulus, neutral stimulus, and probe in the case of attentional bias, and representations of the positive and negative interpretations in the case of interpretive bias. The model includes an 'effortful task demand' unit, which is able to boost the activation of the probe stimulus/positive interpretation in situations where there is little actual danger.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Working memory regulates trait anxiety-related threat processing biases.

Booth¹,

Mackintosh

Sharma

2017

Emotion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High trait anxious individuals tend to show biased processing of threat. Correlational evidence suggests that executive control could be used to regulate such threat-processing. On this basis, we hypothesised that trait anxiety-related cognitive biases regarding threat should be exaggerated when executive control is experimentally impaired by loading working memory. In Study 1, 68 undergraduates read ambiguous vignettes under high and low working memory load; later, their interpretations of these vignettes were assessed via a recognition test. Trait anxiety predicted biased interpretation of social threat vignettes under high working memory load, but not under low working memory load. In Study 2, 53 undergraduates completed a dot probe task with fear-conditioned Japanese characters serving as threat stimuli. Trait anxiety predicted attentional bias to the threat stimuli but, again, this only occurred under high working memory load. Interestingly however, actual eye movements toward the threat stimuli were only associated with state anxiety and this was not moderated by working memory load, suggesting that executive control regulates biased threat-processing downstream of initial input processes such as orienting. These results suggest that cognitive loads can exacerbate trait anxiety-related cognitive biases, and therefore represent a useful tool for assessing cognitive biases in future research. More importantly, since biased threat-processing has been implicated in the aetiology and maintenance of anxiety, poor executive control may be a risk factor for anxiety disorders.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working memory regulates trait anxiety-related threat processing biases.

Booth¹,

Mackintosh

Sharma

2017

Emotion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That said, the theoretically more important finding is perhaps that orienting to threat was still modulated by top-down control (see comparison between Experiment 1 and 2). This shows that orienting to threat is not encapsulated from top-down control (LeDoux, 1996;Öhman & Mineka, 2001) but instead requires a model that takes both the (subjective) threat value of stimuli and their task relevance into account, and allows top-down modulation of threatening stimuli (e.g., competitive interaction model; Mathews & Mackintosh, 1998;Desimone & Duncan, 1995;Pessoa & Adolphs, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One potential issue is that such an encapsulated threat system could conflict with the allocation of attention in accordance with an organism's immediate top-down goals and may even endanger survival (Chun, Golomb, & Turk-Browne, 2011;Mathews & Mackintosh, 1998;Mogg & Bradley, 1998;Yiend, 2010). For example, while you are driving, the reflexively orienting of attention to a spider on your leg and the goal-contingent orienting of attention to a traffic light that turns red at exactly the same time would be at odds with each other.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Threat captures attention, but not automatically: Top-down goals modulate attentional orienting to threat distractors

Vromen

Lipp

Remington

et al. 2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid orienting of attention to potential threats has been proposed to proceed outside of top-down control. However, paradigms that have been used to investigate this have struggled to separate the rapid orienting of attention (i.e. capture) from the later disengagement of focal attention that may be subject to top-down control. Consequently, it remains unclear whether and to what extent orienting to threat is contingent on top-down goals. The current study manipulated the goal-relevance of threat distractors (spiders), whilst a strict top-down attentional set was encouraged by presenting the saliently colored target and the threat distracter simultaneously for a limited time. The goal-relevance of threatening distractors was manipulated by including a spider amongst the possible target stimuli (Experiment 1: spider/cat targets) or excluding it (Experiment 2: bird/fish targets). Orienting and disengagement were disentangled by cueing attention away from or towards the threat prior to its onset. The results indicated that the threatening spider distractors elicited rapid orienting of attention when spiders were potentially goalrelevant (Experiment 1) but did so much less when they were irrelevant to the task goal (Experiment 2). Delayed disengagement from the threat distractors was even more strongly contingent on the task goal and occurred only when a spider was a possible target. These results highlight the role of top-down goals in attentional orienting to and disengagement from threat.

show abstract

“…Os experimentos de Erthal et al (2005), mostraram interferência emocional de imagens de corpos humanos mutilados do banco IAPS apresentados por 200 m sobre a atenção. Apesar de não existir consenso na literatura (Mathews & Mackintosh, 1998;Mogg & Bradley, 1998) alguns autores têm postulado que a atenção seletiva para estímulos ameaçadores é uma característica específica de populações clínicas e indivíduos com alta ansiedade (Eysenck, 1992;Williams, Watts, MacLeod, & Mathews, 1988). Em um estudo que avaliou ansiedade em estudantes universitários foi empregada a Visual Probe Detection Task Paradigm para avaliar se o viés de atenção ou a dificuldade em desprender-se do estímulo alvo era o responsável pelos resultados nas tarefas de atenção visual seletiva (Koster et al, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Avaliação da ansiedade e do viés de atenção no canal visual para estímulos emocionais em uma amostra não clínica

Melo¹,

Oliveira

Peixoto³

et al. 2012

Estud. psicol. (Natal)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoA ansiedade vem sendo estudada como fator capaz de influenciar a atenção visual seletiva em experimentos como a Visual Probe Detection Task (VPDT). Este estudo objetivou comparar o viés de atenção para imagens emocionais em pessoas com diferentes níveis de ansiedade de traço e estado usando a VPDT. Oitenta e dois estudantes universitários responderam ao IDATE. Na VPDT, utilizaram-se 12 pares de imagens com alto nível de ativação e valência negativa, pareadas com imagens controles neutras, do International Affective Picture System (IAPS). Os estímulos eram apresentados durante 200 m. O viés de atenção não foi diferente entre os participantes com baixos e altos níveis de ansiedade de traço e estado. Tais resultados indicaram que elas não são importantes para o viés de atenção para estímulos negativos com altos níveis de ativação. Além disso, é possível que o viés de atenção para estímulos ansiogênicos seja observado apenas em populações clínicas.Palavras-chave: ansiedade; Visual Probe Detection Task; atenção seletiva. AbstractAssessment of anxiety and attentional bias in the visual channel toward emotional stimuli in a non-clinical sample. Anxiety has been observed as a factor capable to influence the visual selective attention in experiments such as the Visual Probe Detection Task (VPDT). This study aimed to compare the attentional bias to emotional images in people with different levels of trait and state anxiety using a VPDT. Eighty-two undergraduate students performed VPDT and answered the State and Trait Anxiety Inventory. In VPDT, 12 pairs of images from International Affective Picture System (emotional image with high arousal level and negative valence/ and one control, neutral) were presented during 200 m. There was no attentional bias difference between the participants neither with low nor high levels of trait or state of anxiety. These results indicated that trait or state anxiety might not be important to attentional bias to negative and arousing visual stimuli. It is possible that just clinical populations with anxiety disorders often show attentional bias to anxiogenic stimuli.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 663 publications

References 64 publications

Working memory regulates trait anxiety-related threat processing biases.

Working memory regulates trait anxiety-related threat processing biases.

Threat captures attention, but not automatically: Top-down goals modulate attentional orienting to threat distractors

Avaliação da ansiedade e do viés de atenção no canal visual para estímulos emocionais em uma amostra não clínica

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About