Although initial findings indicated that threat-related attention bias variability (ABV), an index designed to capture dynamic shifts in threat-related attention over time, was positively correlated with the severity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, a recent study relying on simulated data has raised questions regarding the validity and empirical utility of ABV. Specifically, the simulations suggested that core features of reaction time data distinct from threat-related attention bias, such as the reaction time standard deviation and mean, could explicate the reported elevated ABV among samples with PTSD. In the present study, we evaluated these suggestions in 95 PTSD-diagnosed participants. The results showed that ABV significantly and uniquely predicted PTSD symptom severity beyond the predictive value of core reaction time features, R 2 = .05-.23. Some of the predictions stemming from the simulated results were replicated, whereas others were not. Contrary to the conclusion drawn from the simulated data, the results from the current study suggest that ABV is a valid and replicable correlate of PTSD symptom severity.

Background Many individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have limited access to first-line treatments, warranting the development of remotely-delivered treatments. Attention bias modification (ABM), targeting perturbed threat-related attentional patterns, shows promise when delivered in-person. However, previous studies found ABM to be ineffective when delivered remotely. Randomized clinical trials usually applied two variations of ABM: ABM away from threat or attention control training (ACT) balancing attention between threat-related and neutral stimuli. We tested remotely-delivered ACT/ABM with tighter supervision and video-based interactions that resemble in-clinic protocols. We expected to replicate the results of in-clinic trials, in which ACT outperformed ABM for PTSD. Methods In this double-blinded, parallel-group randomized controlled trial, 60 patients diagnosed with PTSD were randomized (ABM n = 30; ACT n = 30). Patients performed eight bi-weekly remotely-delivered supervised ABM/ACT sessions. Symptoms were assessed pre- and post-treatment with Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale 5 (CAPS-5) severity score and PTSD diagnosis as the primary outcomes. Current depressive episode, current anxiety-related comorbidity, and time elapsed since the trauma were examined as potential moderators of treatment outcome. Results Significant decrease in CAPS-5 severity scores and PTSD diagnosis was observed following both ACT and ABM with no between-group difference. Patients without depression or whose trauma occurred more recently had greater symptom reduction in the ACT than the ABM group. Conclusions Contrary to our expectation, symptoms decreased similarly following ACT and ABM. Moderator analyses suggest advantage for ACT in non-depressed patients and patients whose trauma occurred more recently. Further refinements in remotely-delivered ABM/ACT may be needed.

No abstract

No abstract