Beware the eyes behind the mask: The capture and hold of selective attention by backward masked fearful eyes

Carlson, Joshua M.; Torrence, Robert D.; Hyde, Michelle R. Vander

doi:10.1007/s11031-016-9542-1

Cited by 22 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found a consistent capture of attention by fearful faces in the dot-probe across all five experimental blocks in Experiment 1. This finding is in accordance to earlier findings that threatening stimuli capture attention (Carlson et al, 2009;Carlson, Lehman, et al, 2019;Carlson & Mujica-Parodi, 2015;Carlson & Reinke, 2014;Carlson et al, 2016;Cooper & Langton, 2006;Fox, 2002;Fox & Damjanovic, 2006;Koster et al, 2004;Macleod et al, 1986;Pourtois, Grandjean, Sander, & Vuilleumier, 2004). However, it should be noted that several studies have failed to find attention bias effects in the dot-probe task (e.g., Puls & Rothermund, 2017).…”

Section: Stability Of Attention Bias Measures Across Blockssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Humans, and other species, reflexively orient attentional resources to salient stimuli within their environment (Kret, Jaasma, Bionda, & Wijnen, 2016;van Rooijen, Ploeger, & Kret, 2017). Visual signals of potential threat-including poisonous and predatory animals, weapons, violent acts, bodily harm, industrial pollution, threat-related words, threatening (fearful and angry) facial expressions and facial features, as well as other threat-related cues -are particularly salient and capture visual attention (Carlson, Fee, & Reinke, 2009;Carlson, Lehman, & Thompson, 2019;Carlson & Mujica-Parodi, 2015;Carlson & Reinke, 2014;Carlson, Torrence, & Vander Hyde, 2016;Cooper & Langton, 2006;Fox, 2002;Fox & Damjanovic, 2006;Koster, Crombez, Verschuere, & De Houwer, 2004;Macleod, Mathews, & Tata, 1986). The prioritized attentional processing of threat-related information is referred to as attentional bias.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The stability and reliability of attentional bias measures in the dot-probe task: Evidence from both traditional mean bias scores and trial-level bias scores

Carlson

Fang

2020

Motiv Emot

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new method of calculating attentional bias from the dot-probe task measures fluctuations in bias towards and away from emotional stimuli over time using trial level bias score metrics. We assessed the stability and reliability of traditional attentional bias scores and trial level bias score measures of attentional bias across time in two five-block dot-probe task experiments in nonclinical samples. In experiments 1 and 2, both traditional attentional bias scores and trial level bias score measures of attentional bias did not habituate/decrease across time. In general, trial level bias score metrics (i.e., attention bias variability as well as the mean biases toward and away from threat) were more reliable than the traditional attention bias measure. This pattern was observed across both experiments. The traditional bias score, however, did improve in reliability in the later blocks of the fearful face dot-probe task. Although trial level bias score measures did not habituate and were more reliable across blocks, these measures did not correlate with state or trait anxiety. On the other hand, trial level bias score measures were strongly correlated with general reaction time variability-and after controlling for this effect no longer superior in reliability in comparison to the traditional attention bias measure. We conclude that general response variability should be removed from trial level bias score measures to ensure that they truly reflect attention bias variability.Terms of use and reuse: academic research for non-commercial purposes, see here for full terms. https://www.springer.com/aamterms-v1

show abstract

Section: Stability Of Attention Bias Measures Across Blockssupporting

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The stability and reliability of attentional bias measures in the dot-probe task: Evidence from both traditional mean bias scores and trial-level bias scores

Carlson

Fang

2020

Motiv Emot

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding indicates that the eyes and mouth were not uniformly dominant in different types of facial expressions. The eyes seemed to be especially important for recognizing fear, while the mouth was crucial for recognizing pleasure ( Murphy and Isaacowitz, 2010 ; Carlson et al, 2016 ). For example, fear is usually associated with large eyes, and happiness is closely related to a rise of the mouth ( Cangöz et al, 2006 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Cognitive Control on Attentional Processing of Emotional Information Among Older Adults: Evidence From an Eye-Tracking Study

Liu

et al. 2021

Front. Aging Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although numerous studies have suggested that the gradually increasing selective preference for positive information over negative information in older adults depends on cognitive control processes, few have reported the characteristics of different attention stages in the emotional processing of older individuals. The present study used a real-time eye-tracking technique to disentangle the attentional engagement and disengagement processes involved in age-related positivity effect (PE).Methods: Eye movement data from a spatial-cueing task were obtained for 32 older and 32 younger healthy participants. The spatial-cueing task with varied cognitive loads appeared to be an effective way to explore the role of cognitive control during the attention engagement and disengagement stages of emotion processing.Results: Compared with younger adults, older participants showed more positive gaze preferences when cognitive resources were sufficient for face processing at the attention engagement stage. However, the age-related PE was not observed at the attention disengagement stage because older adults had more difficulty disengaging from fearful faces than did the younger adults due to the consumption of attention by the explicit target judgment.Conclusion: The present study highlights how cognitive control moderates positive gaze preferences at different attention processing stages. These findings may have far-reaching implications for understanding, preventing, and intervening in unsuccessful aging and, thus, in promoting active and healthy aging.

show abstract

“…Koster and colleagues indicated that attentional bias found in behavioral studies may not be due to rapid orientation, but due to delayed disengagement. Other research that included a baseline found rapid orientation of attention toward and delayed disengagement from fearful faces (Carlson & Mujica-Parodi, 2015;Carlson & Reinke, 2010;Carlson, Reinke, LaMontagne, & Habib, 2011) and fearful eyes (Carlson & Reinke, 2014;Carlson, Torrence, & Vander Hyde, 2016). Threatrelated response slowing (i.e., behavioral freezing) might compromise differentiation of orienting and disengagement (Clarke, Macleod, & Guastella, 2013;Mogg, Holmes, Garner, & Bradley, 2008).…”

Section: Attentional Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Event‐related potentials of attentional bias toward faces in the dot‐probe task: A systematic review

Torrence

Troup

2017

Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dot-probe task is a common task to assess attentional bias toward different stimuli and how groups differ (e.g., attentional bias in anxiety disorders). However, measuring reaction time has been suggested to be unreliable. Neuroimaging methods such as fMRI were shown to be more reliable in assessing attentional bias, but fMRI has poor temporal resolution and therefore cannot assess timing of attention. ERPs have been used to examine the time course of attentional bias. Although ERP research may be more reliable than reaction time, there have been inconsistencies in the literature. This review systematically searched for articles that used the dot-probe task with facial expressions and measured neural correlates with ERP. We found that some of the inconsistencies might be the cause of methodological differences (e.g., timing of stimuli), differences in emotional expression, and/or sample differences (e.g., sex, age, etc.). Suggestions on how future research could address the issues presented in this review were discussed.

show abstract

Beware the eyes behind the mask: The capture and hold of selective attention by backward masked fearful eyes

Cited by 22 publications

References 64 publications

The stability and reliability of attentional bias measures in the dot-probe task: Evidence from both traditional mean bias scores and trial-level bias scores

The stability and reliability of attentional bias measures in the dot-probe task: Evidence from both traditional mean bias scores and trial-level bias scores

Effect of Cognitive Control on Attentional Processing of Emotional Information Among Older Adults: Evidence From an Eye-Tracking Study

Event‐related potentials of attentional bias toward faces in the dot‐probe task: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About