The stability and reliability of attentional bias measures in the dot-probe task: Evidence from both traditional mean bi
- PDF / 739,063 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 77 Downloads / 159 Views
ORIGINAL PAPER
The stability and reliability of attentional bias measures in the dot‑probe task: Evidence from both traditional mean bias scores and trial‑level bias scores Joshua M. Carlson1 · Lin Fang1
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract A new method of calculating attentional bias from the dot-probe task measures fluctuations in bias towards and away from emotional stimuli over time using trial level bias score metrics. We assessed the stability and reliability of traditional attentional bias scores and trial level bias score measures of attentional bias across time in two five-block dot-probe task experiments in non-clinical samples. In experiments 1 and 2, both traditional attentional bias scores and trial level bias score measures of attentional bias did not habituate/decrease across time. In general, trial level bias score metrics (i.e., attention bias variability as well as the mean biases toward and away from threat) were more reliable than the traditional attention bias measure. This pattern was observed across both experiments. The traditional bias score, however, did improve in reliability in the later blocks of the fearful face dot-probe task. Although trial level bias score measures did not habituate and were more reliable across blocks, these measures did not correlate with state or trait anxiety. On the other hand, trial level bias score measures were strongly correlated with general reaction time variability—and after controlling for this effect no longer superior in reliability in comparison to the traditional attention bias measure. We conclude that general response variability should be removed from trial level bias score measures to ensure that they truly reflect attention bias variability. Keywords Threat bias · Dot probe · Attention variability · Emotional attention · Habituation · Fearful faces · Threatening images Humans, and other species, reflexively orient attentional resources to salient stimuli within their environment (Kret et al. 2016; van Rooijen et al. 2017). Visual signals of potential threat—including poisonous and predatory animals, weapons, violent acts, bodily harm, industrial pollution, threat-related words, threatening (fearful and angry) facial expressions and facial features, as well as other threat-related cues—are particularly salient and capture visual attention (Carlson et al. 2009; Carlson et al. 2019b; Carlson and Mujica-Parodi 2015; Carlson and Reinke 2014; Carlson et al. 2016; Cooper and Langton 2006; Fox 2002; Fox and Damjanovic 2006; Koster et al. 2004; Macleod et al. 1986). The prioritized attentional processing of threat-related * Joshua M. Carlson joshcarl@nmu.edu 1
Department of Psychological Science, Northern Michigan University, 1401 Presque Isle Avenue, Marquette, MI 49855, USA
information is referred to as attentional bias. An attentional bias to threat is adaptive and can prepare an organism to ready resources for impending danger (Ohman and Mineka, 2001), but an exaggerated attentional bias to threa
