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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |