Beyond the modified dot-probe task: A meta-analysis of the efficacy of alternate attention bias modification tasks across domains

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-04-27 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102436
Tessa Rooney , Louise Sharpe , Jemma Todd , Stefan Carlo Michalski , Dimitri Van Ryckeghem , Geert Crombez , Ben Colagiuri
{"title":"Beyond the modified dot-probe task: A meta-analysis of the efficacy of alternate attention bias modification tasks across domains","authors":"Tessa Rooney ,&nbsp;Louise Sharpe ,&nbsp;Jemma Todd ,&nbsp;Stefan Carlo Michalski ,&nbsp;Dimitri Van Ryckeghem ,&nbsp;Geert Crombez ,&nbsp;Ben Colagiuri","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Attention biases towards disease-relevant cues have been implicated in numerous disorders and health conditions, such as anxiety, cancer, drug-use disorders, and chronic pain. Attention bias modification (ABM) has shown that changing attention biases can change related emotional processes. ABM most commonly uses a modified dot-probe task, which has received increasing criticism regarding its reliability and inconsistent findings. The purpose of the present review was thus to systematically review and meta-analyse alternative tasks used in ABM research. We sought to examine whether alternative tasks significantly changed attention biases and emotional outcomes, and critically examined whether relevant sample, task and intervention characteristics moderated each of these effect sizes. Seventy-four (completer <em>n</em> = 15,294) study level comparisons were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, alternative ABM designs had a medium effect on changing biases (<em>g</em> = 0.488), and a small, but significant effect on improving clinical outcomes (<em>g</em> = 0.117). We found this effect to be significantly larger for studies which successfully changed biases compared to those that did not. Across all tasks, it appeared that targeting engagement biases results in the largest change to attention biases. Importantly, we found tasks incorporating gaze-contingency – encouraging engagement with non-biased stimuli – show the most promise for improving emotional outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"110 ","pages":"Article 102436"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000576/pdfft?md5=b3617f5ee11d00c47921116fd096fc4b&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735824000576-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000576","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Attention biases towards disease-relevant cues have been implicated in numerous disorders and health conditions, such as anxiety, cancer, drug-use disorders, and chronic pain. Attention bias modification (ABM) has shown that changing attention biases can change related emotional processes. ABM most commonly uses a modified dot-probe task, which has received increasing criticism regarding its reliability and inconsistent findings. The purpose of the present review was thus to systematically review and meta-analyse alternative tasks used in ABM research. We sought to examine whether alternative tasks significantly changed attention biases and emotional outcomes, and critically examined whether relevant sample, task and intervention characteristics moderated each of these effect sizes. Seventy-four (completer n = 15,294) study level comparisons were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, alternative ABM designs had a medium effect on changing biases (g = 0.488), and a small, but significant effect on improving clinical outcomes (g = 0.117). We found this effect to be significantly larger for studies which successfully changed biases compared to those that did not. Across all tasks, it appeared that targeting engagement biases results in the largest change to attention biases. Importantly, we found tasks incorporating gaze-contingency – encouraging engagement with non-biased stimuli – show the most promise for improving emotional outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超越改良点探测任务:跨领域交替注意力偏差修正任务有效性的荟萃分析
许多疾病和健康状况,如焦虑症、癌症、药物滥用症和慢性疼痛,都与对疾病相关线索的注意偏差有关。注意偏差修正(ABM)表明,改变注意偏差可以改变相关的情绪过程。注意力偏差修正法最常用的是经改进的点探测任务,该方法因其可靠性和不一致的研究结果而受到越来越多的批评。因此,本综述的目的是对 ABM 研究中使用的替代任务进行系统综述和元分析。我们试图研究替代任务是否会显著改变注意偏差和情绪结果,并批判性地研究相关样本、任务和干预特征是否会调节这些效应大小。荟萃分析包括 74 项(完成者 n = 15294)研究水平比较。总体而言,替代性 ABM 设计对改变偏倚具有中等效果(g = 0.488),对改善临床结果具有微小但显著的效果(g = 0.117)。我们发现,成功改变偏差的研究与未成功改变偏差的研究相比,效果明显更大。在所有任务中,针对参与偏差的研究似乎对注意偏差的改变最大。重要的是,我们发现包含凝视权变(鼓励参与无偏见刺激)的任务最有希望改善情绪结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board How a strong measurement validity review can go astray: A look at Higgins et al. (2024) and recommendations for future measurement-focused reviews Are digital psychological interventions for psychological distress and quality of life in cancer patients effective? A systematic review and network meta-analysis The impact of interventions for depression on self-perceptions in young people: A systematic review & meta-analysis Corrigendum to “Network meta-analysis examining efficacy of components of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia’ [Clinical Psychology Review 114 (2024) 102507].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1