Attentional bias in high- and low-anxious individuals: Evidence for threat-induced effects on engagement and disengagement

Abstract

Attentional bias to threatening visual stimuli (words or pictures) is commonly present in anxious individuals, but not in non-anxious people. There is evidence to show that attentional bias to threat can be induced in all individuals when threat is imposed by threat not of symbolic nature, but by cues that predict aversive stimulation (loud noise or electric shock). However, it is not known whether attentional bias in such situations is still influenced by individual differences in anxiety. This question was addressed in two experiments using a spatial cuing task in which visual cues predicted the occurrence of an aversive event consisting of a loud human scream. Speeded attentional engagement to threat cues was positively correlated with trait anxiety in Experiment 1. Experiment 2 showed that speeded attentional engagement was present only in participants selected for high anxiety but not in low-anxious participants. In both experiments, slower disengagement from threat cues was found in all participants, irrespective of their trait anxiety levels.

Emotional Stroop interference for threatening words is related to reduced EEG delta–beta coupling and low attentional control

“…Its neural basis can be found in cortical, most importantly prefrontal cortical, regions which interact with sub-cortical structures (amygdala) when controlling attention for emotional stimuli (Ochsner and Gross, 2005;Eysenck et al, 2007;McRae et al, 2009). Recent years have seen a growing interest in the concept of attentional control (often measured with the ACS) and its relationship to various experimental cognitive-emotional phenomena that are considered relevant for the study of affective disorders (see for instance, Derryberry and Reed, 2002;Bishop et al, 2007;Koster et al, 2008;Verwoerd et al, 2008;Hagenaars and Putman, 2011;Massar et al, 2011). Putman et al (submitted for publication) reported that attentional avoidance of visual threat stimuli, which was positively correlated to trait anxiety, was negatively related to ACS scores.…”

The time course of attentional bias to cues of threat and safety

“…However, in that particular study, threat signals did not impair disengagement of attention from their location in comparison to neutral cues. Note that other studies failed to find facilitation of attention by threatening cues, but only found disengagement of attention from threat instead (Massar, Mol, Kenemans, & Baas, 2011;Van Damme, Crombez, & Notebaert, 2008).…”

Enhanced probing of attentional bias: The independence of anxiety-linked selectivity in attentional engagement with and disengagement from negative information

“…Specifically, this bias could involve either selective attentional engagement with negative information, reflecting a disproportionate tendency for attention to become more readily focused on initially distal negative information, or selective attentional disengagement from negative information, reflecting a disproportionate tendency for attention to remain more firmly focused on initially proximal negative information (Grafton, Watkins, & MacLeod, 2012). Some researchers have contended that elevated anxiety vulnerability is characterised only by facilitated attentional engagement with negative information (Massar, Mol, Kenemans, & Baas, 2011;Mogg & Bradley, 1998). Others have instead argued that such vulnerability is characterised only by impaired attentional disengagement from negative information (Amir, Elias, Klumpp, & Przeworski, 2003;Fox, Russo, & Dutton, 2002).…”