Investigating predictors of trauma induced data-driven processing and its impact on attention bias and free recall

Abstract

Background: Whilst data-driven processing (DDP) during trauma has been shown to play a role in poor memory integration and is associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) re-experiencing symptoms, the pre-trauma risk factors and related cognitive mechanisms are uncertain. Aims: This experimental study aimed to investigate predictors of peri-traumatic DDP, as well as its role in attention bias to threat and free recall. Method: A virtual reality video was used to simulate an analogue trauma. Questionnaires, a free recall task, and an eye-tracking measure assessed cognitive changes after exposure. Results: Regression analysis demonstrated that trait dissociation at pre-exposure to trauma significantly predicted DDP. Attention bias towards threat-related images was found. Results showed that DDP and poorer free recall predicted attention bias to threat images and higher levels of DDP actually predicted higher overall scores in the free recall task. Conclusions: This study showed that DDP is strongly linked to dissociative traits, and along with memory disintegration it may predict attention changes after exposure to a trauma.

Eye-tracking in the study of attentional bias in posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic literature review

“…The stimuli used in the studies included in this systematic review were all visual, except for one study that also used an auditory stimulus. Six studies used the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) set (Mckinnon et al 2020;Kimble et al2019;Corrigan et al 2020;Bardeen and Daniel 2017;Bardeen et al 2017;Claus et al2021).…”

“…For the included studies, the stimuli were presented through a monitor with different eye-tracking devices. Ten studies used the EyeLink II SR Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Kymble and Hyatt 2019; Astafiev et al 2016;Corrigan et al 2020;Rubin and Telch 2020;Weidmann et al 2019;Kaiser et al 2019;Milanak et al 2018;Bardeen et al 2020;Lazarov et al 2021;Claus et al 2021). Three studies by Maruta et al (2016); Reinhard et al (2017); Kuester et al (2020) used the Eye-tracking device (RED250) from SensoMotoric Instruments.…”

“…2021), evaluated eye movements, they are small, fast, and accurate jumps subjected to both voluntary and involuntary control, in charge of achieving a change of target, to notice different stimuli, as well as to focus on one of them to distinguish properties such as shape, color, measure, location and distance (Gutiérrez 2019). Likewise, nine of the studies measured the fixation variable since it allows to measure the fixation Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Istanbul, Turkey, March 7-10, 2022 on a moving target and provides information on the stimuli that are of most interest to the participant and the total number of fixations in the scene (Kymble and Hyatt 2019; Corrigan et al 2020;Kaiser et al 2019;Milanak et al 2018;Reinhard et al 2017;Powers et al 2019;Lakshman et al 2020;Kuester et al 2020;Lazarov et al 2021). In addition, this variable is associated with certain brain areas responsible for processing the information of an object towards which an observer directs the gaze (Gutierrez 2019).…”

“…In addition, this variable is associated with certain brain areas responsible for processing the information of an object towards which an observer directs the gaze (Gutierrez 2019). Four other studies evaluated the attention bias variable (Mckinnon et al 2020;Corrigan et al 2020;Weidmann et al 2019;Mekawi et al 2019), which tends to run attention preferentially to stimuli that may represent a potential danger or threat (Castillo and Gonzalez 2012). One of the studies evaluated the variable gaze position (Maruta et al 2016), which involves saccadic movements that are high-speed movements of the eyes from two fixation points, mostly performed to direct the gaze to the new stimulus (prosaccades) or to move away from it (antisaccade) (Gila 2009).…”