Fleeting reliability in the dot-probe task
- 468 Downloads
In a dot-probe task, two cues—one emotional and one neutral—are followed by a probe in one of their locations. Faster responses to probes co-located with the emotional stimulus are taken as evidence of attentional bias. Several studies indicate that such attentional bias measures have poor reliability, even though ERP studies show that people reliably attend to the emotional stimulus. This inconsistency might arise because the emotional stimulus captures attention briefly (as indicated by ERP), but cues appear for long enough that attention can be redistributed before the probe onset, causing RT measures of bias to vary across trials. We tested this hypothesis by manipulating SOA (stimulus onset asynchrony between onset of the cues and onset of the probe) in a dot-probe task using angry and neutral faces. Across three experiments, the internal reliability of behavioural biases was significantly greater than zero when probes followed faces by 100 ms, but not when the SOA was 300, 500, or 900 ms. Thus, the initial capture of attention shows some level of consistency, but this diminishes quickly. Even at the shortest SOA internal reliability estimates were poor, and not sufficient to justify the use of the task as an index of individual differences in attentional bias.
KeywordsAttention Dot probe Emotion Attentional bias Threat bias Reliability
We thank Laura Kranz and Emma O’Brien for assistance with data collection. This research was supported by a Grant from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund (VUW1307) to GG. Development of the MacBrain Face Stimulus Set was overseen by Nim Tottenham and supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Early Experience and Brain Development. Please contact Nim Tottenham at firstname.lastname@example.org for more information concerning the stimulus set.
Compliance with ethical standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Victoria University of Wellington Human Ethics Committee. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
The data sets generated and analysed for this study are not publicly available due to ethical constraints, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
- Bar-Haim, Y., Holoshitz, Y., Eldar, S., Frenkel, T. I., Muller, D., Charney, D. S., Pine, D. S., Fox, N. A., & Wald, I. (2010). Life-threatening danger and suppression of attention bias to threat. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(6), 694–698. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09070956.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and non-anxious individuals: A meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cooper, R. M., Bailey, J. E., Diaper, A., Stirland, R., Renton, L. E., Benton, C. P., Penton-Voak, I. S., Nutt, D. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2011). Effects of 7.5% CO2 inhalation on allocation of spatial attention to facial cues of emotional expression. Cognition and Emotion, 25(4), 626–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.508887.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cooper, R. M. & Langton, S. R. H. (2006). Attentional bias to angry face using the dot-probe task? It depends when you look for it. Behavior Research and Therapy, 44, 1321–1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.10.004.
- DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- Holmes, A., Green, S., & Vuilleumier, P. (2005). The involvement of distinct visual channels in rapid attention towards fearful facial expressions. Cognition and Emotion, 19(6), 899–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000454.
- Kappenman, E. S., Farrens, J. L., Luck, S. J., & Proudfit, G. H. (2014). Behavioral and ERP measures of attentional bias to threat in the dot-probe task: Poor reliability and lack of correlation with anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01368.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Verschuere, B., & De Houwer, J. (2004). Selective attention to threat in the dot probe paradigm: Differentiating vigilance and difficulty to disengage. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1183–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Verschuere, B., Van Damme, S., & Wiersema, J. R. (2006). Components of attentional bias to threat in high trait anxiety: Facilitated engagement, impaired disengagement, and attentional avoidance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1757–1771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.12.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (1999). Some methodological issues in assessing attentional biases for threatening faces in anxiety: A replication study using a modified version of the probe detection task. Behavior Therapy and Research, 37, 595–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00158-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Müller, H. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 15(2), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-15220.127.116.115.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Posner, M. I., Cohen, Y., & Rafal, R. D. (1982). Neural systems control of spatial attention. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 298(1089), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1982.0081.
- R Core Team (2015). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer Software]. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org.
- Rodebaugh, T. L., Scullin, R. B., Langer, J. K., Dixon, D. J., Huppert, J. D., Bernstein, A., Zvielli, A., & Lenze, E. J. (2016). Unreliability as a threat to understanding psychopathology: The cautionary tale of attentional bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(6), 840–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000184.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Schäfer, J., Bernstein, A., Zvielli, A., Hölfer, M., Wittchen, H., & Schönfeld, S. (2016). Attentional bias temporal dynamics predict posttraumatic stress symptoms: A prospective-longitudinal study among soldiers. Depression and Anxiety, 33, 630–639. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22526.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Spearman, C. C. (1910). Correlation calculated from faulty data. British Journal of Psychology, 3(3), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1910.tb00206.x.Google Scholar
- Spielberger, C. D., & Sydeman, S. J. (1994). State-trait anxiety inventory and state-trait anger expression inventory. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 292–321). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Staugaard, S. R. (2009). Reliability of two versions of the dot-probe task using photographic faces. Psychology Science Quarterly, 51(3), 339–350.Google Scholar
- Tottenham, N., Tanaka, J. W., Leon, A. C., McCarry, T., Nurse, M., Hare, T. A., Marcus, D. J., Westerlund, A., Casey, B. J., & Nelson, C. (2009). The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Research, 168(3), 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2008.05.006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Van Bockstaele, B., Vershuere, B., Koster, E. H. W., Tibboel, H., De Houwer, J., & Crombez, G. (2011). Differential predictive power of self report and implicit measures on behavioural and physiological fear responses to spiders. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 79, 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.10.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- White, L. K., Britton, J. C., Sequiera, S., Ronkin, E. G., Chen, G., Bar-Haim, Y., Pine, D. S. (2016). Behavioral and neural stability of attentional bias to threat in healthy adolescents. NeuroImage, 136, 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.058.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar