No evidence that attentional bias towards pain-related words is associated with verbally induced nocebo hyperalgesia: a dot-probe study

Coleshill, Matthew J.; Sharpe, Louise; Colagiuri, Ben

doi:10.1097/pr9.0000000000000921

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the modified Suicide Dot Probe Task may not adequately measure the construct of interest. For instance, Coleshill et al (2021) note that the Dot Probe Task (albeit a different version) provides only a snapshot in time of attention, though attentional bias is posited to be a dynamic process and context-dependent (Todd et al, 2018). To examine this possibility, future research should test the modified Suicide Dot Probe Task under various conditions, such as after a negative versus neutral and/or positive mood induction, or under a social versus asocial condition (e.g., having the stimuli associated with and without human faces).…”

Section: Variablementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another established task for assessing attentional bias is the Dot Probe (MacLeod et al, 1986). Previous research has adapted and validated several versions of this task to evaluate attention patterns across a range of clinically‐relevant domains (e.g., anxiety/fear, food, pain, empathy; Bi et al, 2021; Coleshill et al, 2021; Vervoort et al, 2021). The Dot Probe Task follows the same general structure (Vervoort et al, 2021): two stimuli are presented simultaneously on the screen for a limited amount of time (typically milliseconds).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Suicide Dot Probe Task: Psychometric properties and validity in relation to suicide‐related outcomes

Rogers,

Carosa,

Haliczer

et al. 2023

Suicide & Life Threat Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAttentional biases to suicide‐related stimuli have been linked to suicide‐related outcomes. However, behavioral tasks that have been previously modified to capture suicide‐specific attentional biases have demonstrated inconsistent reliability and validity. Adaptation of the Dot Probe Task, a computerized assessment that has been adapted to study a wide variety of biases, may be a promising candidate for assessing suicide‐specific biases.MethodsIn 280 recently discharged inpatients (51% male; Mage = 40.22 years), we evaluated the psychometric properties of a modified Suicide Dot Probe Task. Participants completed this task and assessments of suicidal thoughts and behaviors at baseline and 6‐month follow‐up.ResultsThe Suicide Dot Probe Task demonstrated poor‐to‐moderate internal consistency and poor test‐retest reliability, and participant response times were slower to suicide‐specific and dysphoric stimuli than positive stimuli. However, there were no differences based on the presence or characteristics of recent or lifetime suicidal ideation or attempts. Participants' suicide‐specific biases were not predictive of suicidal ideation or attempts at follow‐up.ConclusionsThe Suicide Dot Probe Task exhibited questionable reliability, and differences in attentional biases were not associated with suicidal ideation or attempts. This study contributes to a body of research demonstrating the questionable utility of several behavioral tasks to study suicide‐specific attentional biases.

show abstract

Section: Variablementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Suicide Dot Probe Task: Psychometric properties and validity in relation to suicide‐related outcomes

Rogers,

Carosa,

Haliczer

et al. 2023

Suicide & Life Threat Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though this task has been a common measure of attentional bias to threat in the past three decades, recent work has called basic aspects of internal reliability into question for this task (Chapman et al, 2019;Kappenman et al, 2014;Waechter et al, 2014;Staugaard, 2009;Schmukle, 2005). Nevertheless, the task continues to be used in both studies of individual differences in threat-related attentional bias (e.g., Hirai et al, 2022;Vogt et al, 2022;Correa et al, 2022) as well as treatment trials that seek to reduce anxiety due to attentional biases (e.g., Coleshill et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No Evidence for Consistent Reliability Across 36 Variations of the Emotional Dot Probe Task in 9,000 participants

Xu¹,

Passell²,

Strong³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Over the past 30 years, the emotional dot probe task has been a widely used task for measuring attentional bias to threat as a risk factor for psychopathology. Recent work suggests, however, that the emotional dot probe task has very low reliability, indicating inconsistent attentional biases across tests and trials. The current study aimed to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the reliability of the emotional dot probe task across many test versions to identify whether any parameters might yield reliable scores.Methods: Thirty-six versions of the emotional dot probe task were implemented with variations in the type of threat and neutral stimuli (faces, scenes, snakes/spiders), timing parameters (stimulus onset asynchrony of 100, 500, or 900 milliseconds), stimulus orientation (horizontal, vertical), and comparison condition (threat incongruent cue, all neutral cues). In Study 1, 7794 participants recruited through TestMyBrain.org were randomized to one of the 36 versions. Split-half reliability was estimated for each test version. In Study 2, 1839 participants completed one of the 8 versions of the emotional dot probe task with highest estimated reliability from Study 1, along with measures of anxiety (GAD-7 and Brief Hypervigilance Scale). Split-half reliability of threat facilitation scores was estimated for each test version, in all participants and in highly anxious participants only. Results: Split-half reliabilities of threat facilitation scores were low (often indistinguishable from zero) across all versions. Only one version with nonzero reliability from Study 1 showed nonzero reliability in Study 2 (ρ = 0.23, p < 0.05). Reliability was similarly nonsignificant in anxious individuals, except in the top decile of hypervigilance scores (but not the top quartile or in high scorers on GAD-7) where the estimate of reliability estimated using parametric tests was low (ρ = 0.29) but nominally significant based on an uncorrected threshold of p < 0.05. However, the split-half reliability of the top decile was no longer significant when we used nonparametric correlations (ρ = 0.06, p = .67). Conclusions: The emotional dot probe task is not an adequately reliable measure of individual differences in attentional bias to threat. We identified no parameters that produced attentional bias scores that had adequate reliability to justify inclusion in research studies that seek to quantify differences between people, including individuals with elevated anxiety.

show abstract

“…To date, researchers have typically relied on words selected from previous published studies or used the pain descriptors from the McGill Pain Questionnaire 10 (MPQ) without further assessing whether these words are relevant for the target population and hoped that the stimuli do in fact elicit the intended response in study participants. [11][12][13][14] Stimuli that are strongly associated with the concern of pain are crucial as they may facilitate activation of personal pain schemata. 15 In many cognitive tasks, word stimuli are only presented for a short duration (< 500 ms), whereby initial recognition and associative strength between the word and its respective category (ie, pain) may be key to revealing biased processing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Evaluation of Linguistic Stimuli for Pain Research

Vermeir

White

Crombez

et al. 2023

The Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No evidence that attentional bias towards pain-related words is associated with verbally induced nocebo hyperalgesia: a dot-probe study

Abstract: Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. This study examined attention as a mechanism of nocebo hyperalgesia. No association was observed between attentional bias towards pain-related words and nocebo hyperalgesia.

Cited by 8 publications

References 37 publications

The Suicide Dot Probe Task: Psychometric properties and validity in relation to suicide‐related outcomes

The Suicide Dot Probe Task: Psychometric properties and validity in relation to suicide‐related outcomes

No Evidence for Consistent Reliability Across 36 Variations of the Emotional Dot Probe Task in 9,000 participants

Development and Evaluation of Linguistic Stimuli for Pain Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About