Cargando…

The questionable validity of attention bias variability: Evidence from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks

BACKGROUND: Attention bias variability is thought to measure fluctuations in attention towards and away from threat-related information and is elevated in affective disorders. However, recent evidence suggests that attention bias variability may quantify general reaction time variability rather than...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carlson, Joshua M., Fang, Lin, Kassel, Dahlia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9851093/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36684713
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2022.100411
_version_ 1784872335496445952
author Carlson, Joshua M.
Fang, Lin
Kassel, Dahlia
author_facet Carlson, Joshua M.
Fang, Lin
Kassel, Dahlia
author_sort Carlson, Joshua M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Attention bias variability is thought to measure fluctuations in attention towards and away from threat-related information and is elevated in affective disorders. However, recent evidence suggests that attention bias variability may quantify general reaction time variability rather than attention bias behavior per se. METHODS: The current study calculated “attention bias variability” from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks: the dot-probe task (measuring attentional bias) and the arrow flanker task (measuring cognitive control). RESULTS: Attention bias variability measures were correlated across these unrelated tasks. Yet, when general reaction time variability was controlled, attention bias variability across tasks was no longer correlated. In addition, the reliability of attention bias variability measures decreased when controlling for general reaction time variability. Finally, although attention bias variability calculated from the dot-probe task initially correlated with anxious symptoms, this association was no longer significant when controlling for general reaction time variability. LIMITATIONS: Our sample was comprised of high trait anxious individuals. Replication in clinical samples is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: These findings collectively provide strong empirical evidence that attention bias variability is not a valid measure of attention-related behavior, but reflective of general reaction time variability more broadly.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9851093
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98510932023-01-19 The questionable validity of attention bias variability: Evidence from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks Carlson, Joshua M. Fang, Lin Kassel, Dahlia J Affect Disord Rep Article BACKGROUND: Attention bias variability is thought to measure fluctuations in attention towards and away from threat-related information and is elevated in affective disorders. However, recent evidence suggests that attention bias variability may quantify general reaction time variability rather than attention bias behavior per se. METHODS: The current study calculated “attention bias variability” from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks: the dot-probe task (measuring attentional bias) and the arrow flanker task (measuring cognitive control). RESULTS: Attention bias variability measures were correlated across these unrelated tasks. Yet, when general reaction time variability was controlled, attention bias variability across tasks was no longer correlated. In addition, the reliability of attention bias variability measures decreased when controlling for general reaction time variability. Finally, although attention bias variability calculated from the dot-probe task initially correlated with anxious symptoms, this association was no longer significant when controlling for general reaction time variability. LIMITATIONS: Our sample was comprised of high trait anxious individuals. Replication in clinical samples is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: These findings collectively provide strong empirical evidence that attention bias variability is not a valid measure of attention-related behavior, but reflective of general reaction time variability more broadly. 2022-12 2022-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9851093/ /pubmed/36684713 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2022.100411 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ).
spellingShingle Article
Carlson, Joshua M.
Fang, Lin
Kassel, Dahlia
The questionable validity of attention bias variability: Evidence from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks
title The questionable validity of attention bias variability: Evidence from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks
title_full The questionable validity of attention bias variability: Evidence from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks
title_fullStr The questionable validity of attention bias variability: Evidence from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks
title_full_unstemmed The questionable validity of attention bias variability: Evidence from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks
title_short The questionable validity of attention bias variability: Evidence from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks
title_sort questionable validity of attention bias variability: evidence from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9851093/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36684713
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2022.100411
work_keys_str_mv AT carlsonjoshuam thequestionablevalidityofattentionbiasvariabilityevidencefromtwoconceptuallyunrelatedcognitivetasks
AT fanglin thequestionablevalidityofattentionbiasvariabilityevidencefromtwoconceptuallyunrelatedcognitivetasks
AT kasseldahlia thequestionablevalidityofattentionbiasvariabilityevidencefromtwoconceptuallyunrelatedcognitivetasks
AT carlsonjoshuam questionablevalidityofattentionbiasvariabilityevidencefromtwoconceptuallyunrelatedcognitivetasks
AT fanglin questionablevalidityofattentionbiasvariabilityevidencefromtwoconceptuallyunrelatedcognitivetasks
AT kasseldahlia questionablevalidityofattentionbiasvariabilityevidencefromtwoconceptuallyunrelatedcognitivetasks