Isolating delayed attentional disengagement from biased orienting to signals of threat in anxiety - not there yet.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition & Emotion Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1080/02699931.2025.2459847
Poppy Watson, Daniel Pearson, Mike E Le Pelley
{"title":"Isolating delayed attentional disengagement from biased orienting to signals of threat in anxiety - not there yet.","authors":"Poppy Watson, Daniel Pearson, Mike E Le Pelley","doi":"10.1080/02699931.2025.2459847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is often argued that increased \"attentional bias to threat\" in anxiety is due to delayed attentional disengagement from threat stimuli, rather than increased attentional orienting towards such signals. In 2013, [Clarke, P. J. F., Macleod, C., & Guastella, A. J. (2013). Assessing the role of spatial engagement and disengagement of attention in anxiety-linked attentional bias: A critique of current paradigms and suggestions for future research directions. <i>Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal</i>, <i>26</i>(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2011.638054] critiqued this literature, pointing out that most studies used paradigms that could not isolate attentional disengagement from attentional orienting. Since this critique, over fifty studies claiming to measure attentional disengagement from threat in anxiety have been published, many using suboptimal methods. In this (preregistered) systematic review and meta-analysis, we outline why many of these paradigms fail to provide a valid measure of attentional disengagement from stimuli with different emotional content. We also highlight studies where the paradigms and task parameters allowed for the valid measurement of attentional disengagement and include a meta-analysis (759 participants) of this subset. Some evidence was observed for slowed disengagement from threat images (relative to neutral) in high-anxious individuals, but heterogeneity across studies was high, and the effect disappeared when restricting the analysis to paradigms that could rule out behavioural freezing as an alternative explanation. Overall, these findings highlight the need for better-quality research in this area and suggest best practices for the field moving forward.</p>","PeriodicalId":48412,"journal":{"name":"Cognition & Emotion","volume":" ","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition & Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2025.2459847","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is often argued that increased "attentional bias to threat" in anxiety is due to delayed attentional disengagement from threat stimuli, rather than increased attentional orienting towards such signals. In 2013, [Clarke, P. J. F., Macleod, C., & Guastella, A. J. (2013). Assessing the role of spatial engagement and disengagement of attention in anxiety-linked attentional bias: A critique of current paradigms and suggestions for future research directions. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 26(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2011.638054] critiqued this literature, pointing out that most studies used paradigms that could not isolate attentional disengagement from attentional orienting. Since this critique, over fifty studies claiming to measure attentional disengagement from threat in anxiety have been published, many using suboptimal methods. In this (preregistered) systematic review and meta-analysis, we outline why many of these paradigms fail to provide a valid measure of attentional disengagement from stimuli with different emotional content. We also highlight studies where the paradigms and task parameters allowed for the valid measurement of attentional disengagement and include a meta-analysis (759 participants) of this subset. Some evidence was observed for slowed disengagement from threat images (relative to neutral) in high-anxious individuals, but heterogeneity across studies was high, and the effect disappeared when restricting the analysis to paradigms that could rule out behavioural freezing as an alternative explanation. Overall, these findings highlight the need for better-quality research in this area and suggest best practices for the field moving forward.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition & Emotion
Cognition & Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: Cognition & Emotion is devoted to the study of emotion, especially to those aspects of emotion related to cognitive processes. The journal aims to bring together work on emotion undertaken by researchers in cognitive, social, clinical, and developmental psychology, neuropsychology, and cognitive science. Examples of topics appropriate for the journal include the role of cognitive processes in emotion elicitation, regulation, and expression; the impact of emotion on attention, memory, learning, motivation, judgements, and decisions.
期刊最新文献
Evidence for an evaluative effect of stimulus co-occurrence may be inflated by evaluative differences between assimilative and contrastive relations. Isolating delayed attentional disengagement from biased orienting to signals of threat in anxiety - not there yet. Priming using human and chimpanzee expressions of emotion biases attention toward positive emotions. Emotion malleability beliefs prompt cognitive reappraisal: evidence from an online longitudinal intervention for adolescents. Dissociating the roles of episodic retrieval and contingency awareness in valence contingency learning.
×
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