Anticipation-specific reliability and trial-to-trial carryover of anticipatory attentional bias for threat

Abstract

Concerns have been raised about the reliability of the widely-used dot-probe task. A novel variation, the cued Visual Probe Task (cVPT), uses cues that predict the locations of emotional stimuli. This appears to result in relatively reliable anticipatory attentional bias scores. However, cVPT reliability could be affected by individuals having an attentional bias towards one or the other predictive cue, rather than to predicted stimuli. We provide an improved assessment of this bias. Further, trial-to-trial carryover effects, a source of withinsubject attentional bias variability previously found for stimulus-evoked biases, were tested.To these aims, a convenience sample of 82 participants was analysed, who performed an online procedure including a reversal of the cue mapping of the cVPT. The predicted stimulus categories were neutral and angry faces. CSIs of 400 and 1000 ms were used based on previous work. An overall anticipatory attentional bias, in terms of RT difference scores, towards threat was found. Reliability was around .4, which was similar to previous results despite the cue reversal procedure. Carryover effects were found with a similar pattern as for non-cued threat-evoked bias. The results confirm a reasonably reliable outcome-focused bias towards threat, showing similar carryover effects as found for stimulus-evoked bias.

Predictive cues and spatial attentional bias for alcohol: Manipulations of cue-outcome mapping

“…The results thus imply that the bias is not merely a consequence of conscious awareness or preference. Results clearly diverge from results for threat stimuli, when reliability survived reversal (Gladwin, Figner, et al, 2019).…”

“…This suggests that processes related to risky drinking are reflected in one particular cue acquiring salience due to its prediction of alcohol-related stimuli. Alcohol-related anticipatory attentional bias thus appears to involve different processes than threat-related anticipatory attentional bias, which does appear to reflect processing related to the predicted outcomes rather than the acquisition of salience by a particular cue (Gladwin, Figner, et al, 2019;Gladwin, Möbius, et al, 2019).…”

“…Further, potentially complex reactions to the actual presentation of stimuli are avoided (Noël et al, 2006;Vollstädt-Klein, Loeber, von der Goltz, Mann, & Kiefer, 2009). However, there is a problem: individual differences merely involving the visual features of the predictive cues could potentially affect reliability (Gladwin, Figner, & Vink, 2019). If an individual has a systematic bias involving these features, this would increase split-half reliability regardless of outcome-related processes.…”

Towards an integrated account of the development of self-regulation from a neurocognitive perspective: A framework for current and future longitudinal multi-modal investigations

“…This model evolved from earlier dual-system models of distinct impulsive versus reflective processes or systems and subsequent criticisms of such models ( Keren and Schul, 2009 ; Pfeifer and Allen, 2012 ). One important element of the model is its emphasis on how executive functions must be selected based on emotionally relevant outcomes predicted due to prior learning experiences provided by the individual’s environment ( Gladwin et al, 2019 ). Further, reflective processing and self-regulation are argued to emerge as a function of time - in the sense of the hundreds of milliseconds following a stimulus - due to the different temporal dynamics of different cognitive processes involved in (cognitive) response selection, rather than there being a separation and competition between sets of reflective and impulsive processes or brain regions.…”