Orienting of Attention to Threatening Facial Expressions Presented under Conditions of Restricted Awareness

Mogg, Karin; Bradley, Brendan P.

doi:10.1080/026999399379050

Cited by 401 publications

(407 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

355

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results undermine the widely held assumption in the dot-probe literature that sampling attention at 500ms is a reflection of the initial orienting of attention towards the stimulus (e.g. Macleod, Mathews, & Tata, 1986;Mogg & Bradley, 1999;Chen, Ehlers, Clark, & Mansell, 2002;Egloff & Hock, 2003). This, combined with recent work showing different patterns of attentional deployment at 100ms compared to 500ms, and 500ms compared to 1250ms for threat-related pictures (Koster et al, in press), suggests that researchers looking to investigate attentional biases in both clinical and non-clinical populations should use a number of presentation times, including one shorter than the standard 500ms condition (e.g.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 77%

“…In line with this evidence most researchers probe for initial allocation of attention at 500ms (e.g. Macleod, Mathews, & Tata, 1986;Mogg & Bradley, 1999;Chen, Ehlers, Clark, & Mansell, 2002;Egloff & Hock, 2003). However, while sampling the allocation of attention at the 500ms time window may reflect the initial orienting of overt attention (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Mogg & Bradley, 1999;Bradley et al, 1998). However, given the fact that an angry facial expression is an evolutionarily old and salient signal of threat it is somewhat surprising that the dot-probe task has failed to reveal an attentional bias in non-anxious individuals to threat related facial expressions (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Attentional bias to angry faces using the dot-probe task? It depends when you look for it

Cooper

Langton

2006

Behaviour Research and Therapy

188

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of studies using the dot-probe task now report the existence of attentional biases to angry faces in participants who rate highly on scales of anxiety; however, no equivalent bias has been observed in non-anxious populations, despite evidence to the contrary from studies using other tasks. One reason for this discrepancy may be that researchers using the dot-probe task have rarely investigated any effects which might emerge earlier than 500 ms following presentation of the threat-related faces.Accordingly, in the current study we presented pairs of face stimuli with emotional and neutral expressions and probed the allocation of attention to these stimuli for presentation times of 100ms and 500ms. Results showed that at 100ms there was an attentional bias towards the location of the relatively threatening stimulus (the angry face in angry/neutral pairs and the neutral face in neutral/happy pairs) and this pattern reversed by 500ms. Comparisons of RT scores with an appropriate baseline suggested that the early bias toward threatening faces may actually arise through inhibition of the relatively least threatening member of a face pair rather than through facilitation of, or vigilance towards, the more threatening stimulus. However the mechanisms governing the observed biases are interpreted, these data provide evidence that probing for the location of spatial attention at 500ms is not necessarily indicative of the initial allocation of attention between competing emotional facial stimuli.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 77%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attentional bias to angry faces using the dot-probe task? It depends when you look for it

Cooper

Langton

2006

Behaviour Research and Therapy

188

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies that have presented stimuli at very rapid and preconscious presentation durations, thereby presumably precluding the time necessary for a significant amount of attentional shifting to occur, provide strong ground for hypothesizing the existence of early attentional-orienting biases (Bradley et al, 1997;E. Fox, 2002;Mogg & Bradley, 1999bMogg et al, 1994Mogg et al, , 1995Mogg et al, , 1997. However, it may be that only those who also exhibit deficiencies in attentional control will continue to exhibit a selective attentional bias toward processing Most et al, 2006).…”

Section: Hypothesis and Demonstration V: Selective Attention To Threat mentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective attention to threat versus reward: Meta-analysis and neural-network modeling of the dot-probe task

Frewen

Dozois

Joanisse

et al. 2008

Clinical Psychology Review

175

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two decades of research conducted to date has examined selective visual attention to threat and reward stimuli as a function of individual differences in anxiety using the dot-probe task. The present study tests a connectionist neural-network model of meta-analytic and key individual study results derived from this literature. Attentional bias for threatening and reward-related stimuli is accounted for by connectionist model implementation of the following clinical psychology and affective neuroscience principles: 1) affective learning and temperament, 2) state and trait anxiety, 3) intensity appraisal, 4) affective chronometry, 5) attentional control, and 6) selective attention training. Theoretical implications for the study of mood and anxiety disorders are discussed.Key Words: Dot-Probe Task, Selective Attention, Threat, Reward, Anxiety, Depression, Connectionism, Neural Network, Amygdala. A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTSelective Attention for Reward & Threat 3 Selective Attention to Threat versus Reward: Meta-analysis and Neural-Network Modeling of the Dot-Probe TaskTheoretical constructs and research methodologies derived from cognitive psychology figure prominently in current emotion research, including investigations into the nature and function of anxiety. For example, cognitive researchers have been studying how individuals visually attend to threatening stimuli, and how between-subject variability in the functioning of attentional systems may correlate with individual differences in anxiety-related traits and disorders (e.g., Williams, Watts, MacLeod, & Matthews, 1997).Evolutionary models of emotion and attention hypothesize that nature may have programmed the visual-attention system to attend selectively to stimuli of biological significance, including both to cues of possible impending threat (e.g., predators), on the one hand, and to cues of potential reinforcement-reward value (e.g., food, mates), on the other (e.g., LeDoux, 1996;Panksepp, 1998;Rolls, 1999). Attentional mechanisms procuring the rapid detection of sources of potential environmental threat are therefore presumed to afford an obvious survival-facilitating mechanism (A. Mathews & Mackintosh, 1998;A. Mathews, Mackintosh, & Fulcher, 1997;. However, an equally integral attentional function to the biological fitness of organisms is to orient toward stimuli of potential reward-value in their environments (Panksepp, 1998;Rolls, 1999).It may be that reward-and threat-detection are performed by distinct attentional systems 1 . Specifically, threat detection attentional mechanisms may represent secondary interrupt programs that continuously perform a background analysis of stimuli regarding their likelihood of representing a source of danger, attaining foreground and conscious significance only to the extent that this analysis results in the detection of relatively significant sources of danger (e.g., LeDoux, 1996). Otherwise, the default and primary orientation of attention may be toward reward-relevant stimuli...

show abstract

“…Bradley, Mogg, White, Groom, de Bono, 1998;Bradley, Mogg, Falla, & Hamilton, 1998;Mogg & Bradley, 1999). In this computerized task, two pictures appear on the screen (one on the left-and one on the right-hand side) for a short time then vanish revealing a probe behind one of the pictures.…”

Section: Pictorial Dot-probe Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

The behavioral inhibition system and the verbal information pathway to children's fears.

Field

2006

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behavioral inhibition system (BIS) is the neurological substrate of trait anxiety and is linked to the development of anxiety disorders. Three experiments are reported that investigate the moderating influence of the BIS on one pathway to fear: threat information. In all studies, children were given verbal information about a set of novel animals and their BIS sensitivity was measured. The results suggest that BIS sensitivity (1) facilitates attentional biases to stimuli associated with threat information; and (2) facilitates behavioral avoidance of novel stimuli associated with threat information. This suggests a possible mechanism through which the behavioral inhibition system may promote the acquisition of animal fears. 3The Behavioral Inhibition System and the Verbal Information Pathway to Children's Fears Rachman (1977) proposed that fears could be acquired through three pathways: direct negative conditioning experiences, learning through observing others, and fear transmitted through verbal information. Retrospective studies have shown support for all three pathways (see King, Gullone & Ollendick, 1998;Merckelbach, De Jong, Muris & van den Hout, 1996 for reviews), however, the information pathway remains the least experimentally studied. AlthoughRachman did not formalize a mechanism through which fear information would have an effect, modern theories of fear development are intrinsically linked to the verbal information pathway.Davey (1997) has pointed out that there are two roles for moderating factors in conditioning models of fear acquisition. The first is through creating expectancies about the likely outcome of an encounter with a conditioned stimulus, CS (expectancy evaluations). The second is through moderating the aversiveness of the unconditioned stimulus (US) or US representation (US Revaluation processes). Threat information could affect both processes by (1) creating expectancies or beliefs about likely outcomes of subsequent conditioning episodes and (2) by revaluing a previously innocuous experience such that its mental representation comes to act as a negative US. In terms of expectancy evaluations, Davey (1997) noted a body of conditioning research suggesting that the core CS-US association driving acquired fear responses in humans is influenced by existing beliefs about the likely outcome of interacting with the CS. For example, a child believing that a dog will bite her who is subsequently bitten will have a stronger dogtrauma association than a child for whom the bite conflicts with their prior assumptions (see Field, in press).Although retrospective studies have shown that threat information contributes to the development of fears, these reports will be prone to memory bias and forgetting of potentially important learning episodes (see King, Gullone & Ollendick, 1998;Merckelbach, De Jong, Muris & Van den Hout, 1996 for reviews). Field, Argyris & Knowles (2001) have developed an experimental paradigm for looking at the effects of fear information in the development of ani...

show abstract

Orienting of Attention to Threatening Facial Expressions Presented under Conditions of Restricted Awareness

Cited by 401 publications

References 46 publications

Attentional bias to angry faces using the dot-probe task? It depends when you look for it

Attentional bias to angry faces using the dot-probe task? It depends when you look for it

Selective attention to threat versus reward: Meta-analysis and neural-network modeling of the dot-probe task

The behavioral inhibition system and the verbal information pathway to children's fears.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About