CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 315Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Anxiety and attention to threat: cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification

Open access
Mogg, Karin, Bradley, Brendan P.·2016·Behaviour Research and Therapy
DOI 10.1016/j.brat.2016.08.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Anxiety disorders are common and difficult to treat. Some cognitive models of anxiety propose that attention bias to threat causes and maintains anxiety. This view led to the development of a computer-delivered treatment: attention bias modification (ABM) which predominantly trains attention avoidance of threat. However, meta-analyses indicate disappointing effectiveness of ABM-threat-avoidance training in reducing anxiety. This article considers how ABM may be improved, based on a review of key ideas from models of anxiety, attention and cognitive control. These are combined into an integrative framework of cognitive functions which support automatic threat evaluation/detection and goal-directed thought and action, which reciprocally influence each other. It considers roles of bottom-up and top-down processes involved in threat-evaluation, orienting and inhibitory control in different manifestations of attention bias (initial orienting, attention maintenance, threat avoidance, threat-distractor interference) and different ABM methods (e.g., ABM-threat-avoidance, ABM-positive-search). The framework has implications for computer-delivered treatments for anxiety. ABM methods which encourage active goal-focused attention-search for positive/nonthreat information and flexible cognitive control across multiple processes (particularly inhibitory control, which supports a positive goal-engagement mode over processing of minor threat cues) may prove more effective in reducing anxiety than ABM-threat-avoidance training which targets a specific bias in spatial orienting to threat.

Verified 2026-10-09 · 1 reference not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review argues that attention bias modification (ABM) using threat-avoidance training has disappointing efficacy and proposes an integrative framework in which anxiety reflects imbalance between bottom-up threat-salience evaluation and top-down cognitive control. It suggests ABM methods that engage active positive/nonthreat attention search and flexible cognitive control—especially goal-directed inhibitory control—may be more effective than training avoidance of threat.

Key findings

  • Anxiety disorders affect over a quarter of the population during their lifetime, and only about half of anxiety sufferers respond successfully to CBT; ABM emerged as a cheap, scalable treatment but meta-analyses report small-to-moderate effects that may become nonsignificant when outliers, publication bias, and follow-up data are considered, with particularly disappointing effects for home-based ABM-threat-avoidance training.
  • In one meta-analysis of 43 controlled trials with over 2000 participants and 47 group comparisons, 42 (91%) used visual-probe or spatial-cueing training and five (9%) used ABM-positive-search training; several ABM-positive-search comparisons had larger symptom-improvement effect sizes than the average, and subsequent clinical studies of home-delivered ABM-positive-search training were promising.
  • A limitation of ABM-threat-avoidance training is that not all anxious individuals show pre-existing attention bias to threat; in one study, almost half of anxious children recruited for such training were excluded because they showed no pre-existing bias towards threat.
  • The proposed framework holds that anxiety and attention biases are consequences of imbalance between bottom-up threat-salience evaluation and top-down cognitive control, and that ABM may work better if it strongly engages multiple top-down functions—particularly goal-directed inhibitory control—during exposure to diverse task-irrelevant threat cues, rather than targeting only automatic spatial orienting to threat.

Methods

  • Design: conceptual review and integrative theoretical framework, not an empirical study.
  • Data: prior cognitive models of anxiety, models of attention and executive control, and published evidence from ABM RCTs and meta-analyses.
  • Main analysis: narrative synthesis of these models and findings into a framework of bottom-up and top-down cognitive functions, with implications for ABM research and treatment development.

Limitations

  • The paper states that a potential limitation of the framework is that it may seem relatively unconstrained, as it identifies multiple interlinked bottom-up and top-down cognitive functions; this flexibility may make it more difficult to evaluate than models proposing a single primary cognitive bias.
  • The paper states that further research is required to clarify relationships between the framework’s component functions, because understanding of their precise inter-relationships is incomplete.
  • Evident from the text: this is not a systematic review or meta-analysis and reports no new empirical data; several cited ABM-positive-search findings are described as preliminary, and the paper notes methodological concerns in ABM studies such as using similar paradigms to modify and assess attention bias and possible response bias in self-report anxiety measures.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2016.08.001

Cites

263 of 264 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 313 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingreasoning

    Despite some inconsistencies, several findings support the proposal that high trait attention control attenuates AB for threat in anxious individuals.

    “Nevertheless, despite some inconsistencies, several findings support the proposal that high trait attention control attenuates AB for threat in anxious individuals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    Avoidance or attenuated AB to threat at longer stimulus durations seem more likely to be associated with high threat or phobia-related stimuli, or high stress.

    “Avoidance or attenuated AB to threat at longer stimulus durations seem more likely to be associated with high threat or phobiarelated stimuli, or high stress (e.g., Bar-Haim et al., 2010;Koster et al., 2005;Mogg & Bradley, 2006;Mogg, Bradley et al., 2004;Mogg, Philippot et al., 2004;Wald et al., 2011; see also Section 4.4.4 on stressors).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bar-Haim et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Koster et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mogg & Bradley, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Effects of ABM on anxiety may be nonsignificant when follow-up data are evaluated.

    “and when follow-up data are evaluated (Heeren, Mogoase, Philippot et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Heeren, Mogoase, Philippot et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    A meta-analysis of 172 studies with over 2000 participants concluded that anxiety is associated with an attention bias favouring threat information.

    “A meta-analysis of 172 studies with over 2000 participants (mainly using visual-probe and modified Stroop tasks) concluded that anxiety is associated with an AB favouring threat information (Bar-Haim et al., 2007)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bar-Haim et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    A limitation of ABM-threat-avoidance training is that not all anxious individuals show an attention bias towards threat before treatment, which calls into question its applicability.

    “A limitation of ABM-threat-avoidance training is that not all anxious individuals show an AB towards threat before treatment, which calls into question its applicability, as there is no point in giving threat-avoidance training to an anxious person who is already avoidant (Van Bockstaele et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van Bockstaele et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: Attention bias towards threat plays a causal role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety.
  • May combine two claims. 87
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 64
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In two ABM studies of patients with PTSD, control attention training reduced PTSD symptoms and AB variability, but did not affect the standard AB index at 500 ms.

    “In two ABM studies of patients with PTSD, control attention training (visualprobe-training task with probes equally likely to replace threat and nonthreat cues) reduced PTSD symptoms and AB variability, but did not affect the standard AB index at 500 ms (which showed no overall bias to threat across both studies in PTSD patients).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Badura-Brack et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Fear disorder was independently associated with greater AB variability at 200 ms and 500 ms, and also with increased AB to threat on the standard AB index at 200 ms, but not 500 ms.

    “Regression analyses indicated that fear disorder was independently associated with greater AB variability at 200 ms and 500 ms (which suggested rapid fluctuations between vigilance and avoidance), and also with increased AB to threat on the standard AB index at 200 ms, but not 500 ms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zvielli et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    A major problem for ABM research is that the overall efficacy of ABM-threat-avoidance training seems weak, with some studies reporting that it reduces both AB and anxiety, while others report no effect on either outcome, particularly when used in home settings.

    “As noted earlier, a major problem for ABM research is that the overall efficacy of ABM-threat-avoidance training seems weak, with some studies reporting that it reduces both AB and anxiety, while others report no effect on either outcome, particularly when used in home settings (Cristea, Kok et al., 2015;MacLeod & Clarke, 2015), which limits its utility.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cristea, Kok et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites MacLeod & Clarke, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Findings from these studies indicate that ABM-positive-search training reduces self-reported stress and cortisol measures of stress reactivity in adults, social anxiety symptoms in youth and clinician-rated symptom severity of anxiety disorders in children.

    “Findings from these studies indicate that ABM-positive-search training reduces self-reported stress and cortisol measures of stress reactivity in adults (Dandeneau et al., 2007), social anxiety symptoms in youth (De Voogd et al., 2014) and clinician-rated symptom severity of anxiety disorders in children (Waters et al., 2013(Waters et al., , 2015(Waters et al., , 2016)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dandeneau et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites De Voogd et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Waters et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Meta-analytic findings from free-viewing studies indicate a bias in initial orienting towards threat, but not in maintenance of gaze on threat in anxiety.

    “Meta-analytic findings from free-viewing studies indicate a bias in initial orienting towards threat, but not in maintenance of gaze on threat in anxiety (Armstrong & Olatunji, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Armstrong & Olatunji, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Evidence from eye-tracking and visual-probe studies suggests that while anxiety relates to increased initial orienting to threat, depression relates more to maintaining spatial attention on negative information.

    “Evidence from eye-tracking and visual-probe studies suggests that while anxiety relates to increased initial orienting to threat, depression relates more to maintaining spatial attention on negative information (Armstrong & Olatunji, 2012;Caseras, Garner, Bradley, & Mogg, 2007;Gotlib & Jormann, 2010;Mogg & Bradley, 2005;Mogg, Millar, & Bradley, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Armstrong & Olatunji, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Caseras et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mogg & Bradley, 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Recent visual-probe-task studies of anxious children suggest that AB towards threat is associated with high internalising symptoms in disorder-free children and in those with distress-related disorders, whereas AB away from threat is found in children who have both high internalising symptoms and fear-related disorders.

    “Recent visual-probe-task studies of anxious children suggest that AB towards threat is associated with high internalising (anxiety and depression) symptoms in disorderfree children and in those with distress-related disorders such as generalised anxiety disorder; whereas AB away from threat (avoidance) is found in children who have both high internalising symptoms and fear-related disorders (Salum”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Salum et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Waters, Bradley & Mogg, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    While stressors characteristically increase state anxiety and emotional distress, they have mixed effects on ABs to threat.

    “While stressors characteristically increase state anxiety and emotional distress, they have mixed effects on ABs to threat.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Attention bias modification (ABM) is a computer-delivered treatment for anxiety that emerged from research in experimental psychopathology.

    “One such potential intervention is attention bias modification (ABM), a computer-delivered treatment for anxiety that emerged from research in experimental psychopathology (MacLeod & Mathews, 2012;MacLeod, Rutherford, Campbell, Ebsworthy, & Holker, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites MacLeod & Mathews, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites MacLeod et al., 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Only one study in the meta-analysis used ABM-positive-search training with a clinically anxious sample, and that showed significant improvement in anxiety symptoms.

    “Only one study in the metaanalysis used ABM-positive-search training with a clinically anxious sample, and that showed significant improvement in anxiety symptoms (Waters et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Waters et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A recent review suggests that the relationship between anxiety and attention bias is less consistent than indicated by the meta-analysis.

    “although a recent review, which considers subsequent research, suggests that the relationship between anxiety and AB is less consistent than indicated by this meta-analysis (Van Bockstaele et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van Bockstaele et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Medication and cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) are effective for anxiety disorders but have limitations, including drug side-effects, drug dependence, and modest efficacy as only about half of anxiety sufferers respond successfully to CBT.

    “While medication and cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) are effective for anxiety disorders (Bandelow et al., 2015;Olatunji, Cisler, & Deacon, 2010), these treatments have limitations, such as drug side-effects and drug dependence, and modest efficacy as only about half of anxiety sufferers respond successfully to CBT (Hofmann, Asnaani, Vonk, Sawyer, & Fang, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bandelow et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Olatunji, Cisler, & Deacon, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hofmann et al., 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    According to some cognitive models, individuals with an enduring bias to automatically direct attention towards threat are prone to develop and experience chronic anxiety, whereas low trait anxious individuals have the opposite bias to avoid attending to threat.

    “According to some cognitive models of anxiety (Williams, Watts, MacLeod, & Mathews, 1988, 1997), individuals who have an enduring bias to automatically direct attention towards threat are prone to develop and experience chronic anxiety; whereas those with reduced susceptibility to anxiety (low trait anxiety) have the opposite bias, i.e., to avoid attending to threat.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Williams et al., 1988, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    ABM-positive-search training encourages active attention search for positive cues and is potentially suitable for all anxious individuals.

    “Another approach encourages active attention search for positive cues (ABM-positive-search training) and is potentially suitable for all anxious individuals (see Fig. 1, lower panel).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Anxiety disorders are common and difficult to treat; over a quarter of the population suffers from an anxiety disorder during their lifetime.

    “Clinical anxiety is a common debilitating problem which is difficult to treat.Over a quarter of the population suffers from an anxiety disorder during their lifetime (Kessler et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kessler et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The meta-analysis by Mogoas et al. (2014) found a small effect of ABM on symptoms, examining 43 controlled trials with over 2000 participants providing 47 group comparisons.

    “For example, the meta-analysis by Mogoas ¸e et al. (2014), which found a small effect of ABM on symptoms, examined 43 controlled trials, with over 2000 participants providing 47 group comparisons.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mogoas et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    High trait anxious individuals have attention and interpretation biases favouring threat information, repressors have opposite biases, and low trait anxious individuals have no biases.

    “High trait anxious individuals have attention and interpretation biases favouring threat information, repressors (low trait anxious individuals with high social desirability scores) have opposite biases, and low trait anxious individuals (who have low social desirability scores) have no biases.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Eysenck, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Eysenck's four-factor theory proposes that four sources of information contribute to anxiety: external stimuli, physiological activity, behaviour action tendencies, and cognitions such as worries.

    “This view was developed into Eysenck's (1997) four-factor theory which proposed that four sources of information contribute to anxiety: external stimuli, physiological activity, behaviour action tendencies, and cognitions such as worries (Fig. 2f).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Eysenck, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    According to the 1997 Williams et al. model, clinical conditions represent a breakdown in the override of anxiety-related attention bias to threat, resulting in further symptoms such as worry.

    “According to the 1997 model,”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Williams et al., 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: Attention bias towards threat plays a causal role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    High trait anxious individuals have an enduring tendency to direct attention towards threat, whereas low trait anxious individuals have a bias to direct attention away from threat.

    “Specifically, high trait anxious individuals have an enduring tendency to direct attention towards threat, whereas low trait anxious individuals have a bias to direct attention away from threat (i.e., attentional avoidance).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Williams et al., 1988, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If conditions allow attention control to modify the initial bias, the resulting AB towards threat may be more variable and likely to depend on individual differences in trait attention control.

    “However, if conditions allow attention control to modify this initial bias, the resulting AB towards threat may be more variable and likely to depend on individual differences in trait attention control.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The Williams et al. model suggests that early attention bias towards threat increases vulnerability to and maintenance of anxiety disorders.

    “This model also suggests that early AB towards threat increases vulnerability to and maintenance of anxiety disorders.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Williams et al., 1988, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: Attention bias towards threat plays a causal role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Attention bias to mild threat cues may maintain anxiety, as anxiety-prone individuals are more likely to notice minor threat cues, enhancing perception of the world as aversive and unsafe, and increasing state anxiety.

    “It may also maintain anxiety, as anxiety-prone individuals are more likely to notice minor threat cues in the environment, which enhances their perception of the world as aversive and unsafe, and increases their state anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Beck and Clark propose that anxiety reflects the ineffective use of effortful processing in counteracting threat-related schema-driven processing.

    “Beck and Clark propose that anxiety reflects the ineffective use of effortful processing in counteracting threat-related schema-driven processing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beck & Clark, 1997 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The vigilance-avoidance hypothesis states that initial attention bias towards threat may be opposed by avoidance in controlled attention strategies, which may reflect an attempt to reduce subjective discomfort or danger.

    “The model also incorporates the vigilance-avoidance hypothesis (Mogg et al., 1987): i.e., the initial AB towards threat may be opposed by avoidance in controlled attention strategies, which may reflect an attempt to reduce subjective discomfort or danger (e.g., averting gaze from horrific scene, escape); so avoidance may be more apparent at higher levels of threat or anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mogg et al., 1987 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Low trait anxious individuals are unlikely to direct attention away from severe or real threats; instead, as stimulus threat value increases, they show greater attention to threat, rather than greater avoidance.

    “However, low trait anxious individuals are unlikely to direct attention away from severe or real threats; instead, as stimulus threat value increases, low trait anxious individuals show greater attention to threat, rather than greater avoidance (Mogg & Bradley, 1998;Mogg, Bradley et al., 2000;Mogg, McNamara et al., 2000;Mogg, Millar, Bradley, 2000;Wilson & MacLeod, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Mogg & Bradley, 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mogg, Bradley et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wilson & MacLeod, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    High state anxious individuals were slower to respond to probes that appeared in a different location to threat cues than to probes that appeared in a different location to nonthreat cues, suggesting difficulty disengaging spatial attention from threat.

    “High state anxious individuals were slower to respond to probes that appeared in a different location to threat cues (invalid-threat; Fig. 1, middle panel), than to probes that appeared in a different location to nonthreat cues (invalid-nonthreat), suggesting difficulty disengaging spatial attention from threat.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fox et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Ohman's model proposes that fear and anxiety depend on a specialised cognitive mechanism which has evolved to detect danger.

    “Ohman's (1993Ohman's ( , 1994) ) model proposes that fear and anxiety depend on a specialised cognitive mechanism which has evolved to detect danger (Fig. 2d).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ohman, 1993, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Evidence of automatic threat evaluation includes physiological responses to masked fear-related stimuli and amygdala response to unattended or masked threat cues.

    “Evidence of automatic threat evaluation includes physiological responses to pictures of masked fear-related stimuli (e.g., snakes, spiders; € Ohman & Soares, 1993, 1994), and amygdala response to unattended or masked threat cues such as fearful or angry faces (e.g., Dolan & Vuillemier, 2003;LeDoux, 1996;Monk et al., 2008; see Section 4.3.1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ohman & Soares, 1993, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Dolan & Vuillemier, 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites LeDoux, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Risk of emotional disorders is higher in individuals with high trait negative affectivity (including anxious/fearful temperament) and lower in those with high trait effortful control.

    “Developmental research indicates that risk of emotional disorders is higher in individuals with high trait negative affectivity (including anxious/fearful temperament) and lower in those with high trait effortful control (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997;Rothbart, Derryberry, & Posner, 1994).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rothbart, Derryberry, & Posner, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Many studies indicate enhanced initial attention bias to threat in anxiety, but evidence of avoidance is more limited and variable.

    “Regarding the vigilance-avoidance hypothesis, while many studies indicate enhanced initial AB to threat in anxiety (e.g., Bar-Haim et al., 2007), evidence of avoidance is more limited and variable (e.g., for a review see Cisler & Koster, 2010; variables influencing ABs towards and away from threat are discussed later, Sections 4.4.2e4.4.6).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bar-Haim et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cisler & Koster, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    According to Beck et al.'s (1985) schema model, anxiety is characterised by hypervalent danger schemas which act as a filter on information processing, resulting in interpretative, attentional and memory biases favouring threat-related information.

    “According to Beck et al.'s (1985) schema model, anxiety is characterised by hypervalent danger schemas (cognitive representations of threat) which act as a filter on information processing, resulting in interpretative, attentional and memory biases which favour threat-related information.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beck et al., 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Some recent evidence suggests that anxiety enhances working memory storage of task-irrelevant threat information; with anxiety and worry being related to greater difficulty in filtering out task-irrelevant threat cues from working memory.

    “Some recent evidence suggests that anxiety enhances working memory storage of task-irrelevant threat information; with anxiety and worry being related to greater difficulty in filtering out task-irrelevant threat cues from working memory (Stout, Shackman, & Larson, 2013;Stout, Shackman, Johnson, & Larson, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Stout, Shackman, & Larson, 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Stout, Shackman, Johnson, & Larson, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    AB for threat reflects conflicting influences of fearful/anxious temperament (which enhances cognitive representations of threat) and trait effortful control, which opposes the allocation of attention to task-irrelevant threat stimuli.

    “Consequently, AB for threat reflects conflicting influences of fearful/anxious temperament (which enhances cognitive representations of threat) and trait effortful control, which opposes the allocation of attention to task-irrelevant threat stimuli (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    While avoidant attention strategies may reduce immediate distress, they may be unhelpful in the long-term by interfering with habituation and thus maintaining anxiety.

    “While avoidant attention strategies may reduce immediate distress, they may be unhelpful in the long-term by interfering with habituation and thus maintaining anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Corbetta and Shulman (2002) described two main attention systems: goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention.

    “Based on their review of cognitive neuroscience evidence, Corbetta and Shulman (2002) described two main attention systems: goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Corbetta & Shulman, 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Duncan's (2010) multiple demand system comprises a network of prefrontal and parietal regions activated by diverse challenging cognitive tasks.

    “The multiple demand system comprises a network of prefrontal and parietal regions, which is activated by a diverse range of challenging cognitive tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Duncan, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These AB indices may reflect differing degrees of influence of bottom-up and top-down mechanisms involved in threat evaluation, spatial orienting and inhibitory processing.

    “These AB indices may reflect differing degrees of influence of bottom-up and top-down mechanisms involved in threat evaluation, spatial orienting and inhibitory processing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Poor cognitive flexibility relates more closely to depression than anxiety symptoms.

    “studies of self-reported attention control in healthy young adults suggest that poor cognitive flexibility relates more closely to depression than anxiety symptoms”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Olafsson et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Reinholdt-Dunne, Mogg, & Bradley, 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Petersen and Posner (2012) updated their 1990 attention model and identified five networks: an alerting network, two orienting networks and two executive control networks.

    “Guided by their review of cognitive neuroscience research findings, Petersen and Posner (2012) updated their 1990 attention model and identified five networks: an alerting network, two orienting networks and two executive control networks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Petersen & Posner, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Anxiety impairs cognitive flexibility and working memory functions, which may be modulated by task demands or presence of threat.

    “Although findings are mixed, other research suggests that anxiety impairs cognitive flexibility (e.g., indexed by task-switching) and working memory functions, which may be modulated by task demands or presence of threat (Berggren & Derakshan, 2013;Snyder et al., 2015;Stout et al., 2013;2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Berggren & Derakshan, 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Snyder et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Stout et al., 2013;2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Posner and Petersen's (1990) model described three main attention systems: alerting, orienting, and detecting signals for conscious focal processing.

    “Another influential view was Posner and Petersen's (1990) model which described three main attention systems: (i) Alerting, which maintains a vigilant alert state and facilitates rapid responses to external stimuli, (ii) Orienting to sensory events, and (iii) Detecting signals for conscious focal processing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Posner & Petersen, 1990 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Models of attention and cognitive control share key ideas about several core functions.

    “Nevertheless, models of attention and cognitive control share key ideas about several core functions (Fig. 3b) which have been integrated into the framework outlined in Fig. 4.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Desimone and Duncan's (1995) biased-competition model proposes that representations of objects compete for processing resources, biased by bottom-up and top-down control processes.

    “They proposed that representations of objects compete for processing resources in multiple points of the visual processing system, including bottom-up stimulus-driven mechanisms which, for example, respond to moving, bright or novel stimuli; and higher-level top-down control mechanisms which select objects for visual processing according to their relevance to current behaviour.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Desimone & Duncan, 1995 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    There is no clear consensus regarding the organisation of attention and executive control functions.

    “The preceding overview indicates that there is no clear consensus regarding the organisation of attention and executive control functions (Section 3; Fig. 3a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The top-down cognitive-control system supports goal-directed thought and action, and biases bottom-up processes in favour of information relevant to current tasks and concerns.

    “The top-down cognitive-control system supports goal-directed thought and action, and biases bottom-up processes in favour of information relevant to current tasks and concerns (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002; Desimone & Duncan, 1995;Duncan, 2010;Miyake & Friedman, 2012;Miyake et al., 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Corbetta & Shulman, 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Desimone & Duncan, 1995 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Duncan, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Sylvester et al. (2012) propose that both high trait anxiety and anxiety disorders are associated with individual differences in dysfunction in four brain networks: ventral attention, frontoparietal, cingulo-opercular and default mode network; which results in increased bottom-up stimulus-driven attention, reduced top-down attention control, increased error sensitivity, and poor emotion regulation

    “Furthermore, Sylvester et al. (2012) propose that both high trait anxiety and anxiety disorders are associated with individual differences in dysfunction in four brain networks: ventral attention, frontoparietal, cingulo-opercular and default mode network; which results in increased bottom-up stimulus-driven attention, reduced topdown attention control, increased error sensitivity, and poor”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sylvester et al., 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Load theory proposes that attention selection operates at each level of processing and depends on task demands at each level.

    “One recent influential view is load theory (Lavie, 2005(Lavie, , 2010)), which proposes that attention selection operates at each level of processing (which is capacity-limited) and depends on task demands at each level.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lavie, 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lavie, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Individual differences in executive attention control are related to variables such as education experience and dopamine genes; and individual differences in alerting have been linked with function of the noradrenaline neurotransmitter system.

    “For example, individual differences in executive attention control are related to variables such as education experience and dopamine genes; and individual differences in alerting have been linked with function of the noradrenaline neurotransmitter system (Petersen & Posner, 2012;Posner & Fan, 2008;Posner & Rothbart, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Petersen & Posner, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Posner & Fan, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Posner & Rothbart, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Diamond (2013) describes three core executive functions: cognitive flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory control.

    “Diamond (2013) broadens Miyake et al.'s (2000) model and, based on a review of empirical evidence, describes three core executive functions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Diamond, 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Clinical depression is associated with impairment across multiple executive functions, including inhibitory control, shifting, and updating working memory.

    “For example, a recent meta-analysis indicates that clinical depression is associated with impairment across multiple executive functions, including inhibitory control, shifting, and updating working memory (Snyder, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Snyder, 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Sylvester et al. (2012) propose that anxiety-related dysfunction in each of the four networks should be evident on tasks using neutral stimuli (i.e., it is not specific to processing threat information).

    “Sylvester et al. (2012) propose that anxiety-related dysfunction in each of the four networks should be evident on tasks using neutral stimuli (i.e., it is not specific to processing threat information).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sylvester et al., 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Miyake et al. (2000) indicated three separable executive functions: shifting, updating, and inhibition.

    “A different view of executive control emerged from latent variable analyses of behavioural data from complex executive function tests, which indicated three separable functions (Friedman & Miyake, 2004;Miyake et al., 2000).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Friedman & Miyake, 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Miyake et al., 2000 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Training individuals to ignore non-emotional task-irrelevant stimuli may enhance frontoparietal network function and attention control, and thereby help reduce anxiety.

    “For example, training individuals to ignore non-emotional task-irrelevant stimuli may enhance frontoparietal network function and attention control, and thereby help reduce anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    A limitation of latent variable analyses is that findings were based on a restricted sample of tests of complex executive functions, which did not include visuospatial attention tasks.

    “A limitation of these latent variable analyses is that findings were based on a restricted sample of tests of complex executive functions, which did not include visuospatial attention tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    While anxiety may be correlated with a wide variety of perturbations in threat processing, not all are implicated in its onset and maintenance.

    “While anxiety may be correlated with a wide variety of perturbations in threat processing (see Fig. 4 for examples), not all are implicated in its onset and maintenance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The present framework encompasses the view that bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes play an important role in contributing to anxiety, and that evaluation of the motivational importance of a stimulus, which includes its threat value, can occur outside awareness and depends on automatic integration of information from multiple sources.

    “Thus, the present framework encompasses the view that bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes play an important role in contributing to anxiety, and that evaluation of the motivational importance of a stimulus, which includes its threat value, can occur outside awareness and depends on automatic integration of information from multiple sources (Pessoa & Adolphs, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pessoa & Adolphs, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    These executive functions are interrelated and contribute to a unitary construct of cognitive control.

    “These functions are interrelated and contribute to a unitary construct of cognitive control (Duncan, 2010;Miyake & Friedman, 2012;Miyake et al., 2000).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Duncan, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Miyake & Friedman, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Miyake et al., 2000 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Inhibitory control is a shared feature of top-down processes and may be subsumed under a common cognitive control factor.

    “Inhibitory control is a shared feature of top-down processes and may be subsumed under a common cognitive control factor (Miyake & Friedman, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Miyake & Friedman, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The same relationship may apply to other functions, such as cognitive flexibility, or bottom-up spatial orienting.

    “The same may apply to other functions, such as cognitive flexibility, or bottom-up spatial orienting (Eysenck et al., 2007;Sylvester et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Eysenck et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sylvester et al., 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The fear circuit is involved in evaluation and detection of threat cues, eliciting and regulating emotional responses, and fear learning and extinction.

    “This fear circuit is involved in evaluation and detection of threat cues, eliciting and regulating emotional responses, and fear learning and extinction (LeDoux, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites LeDoux, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Top-down orienting relates to two different types of AB in anxiety: maintenance of attention on threat, and threat avoidance, and is not the same as goal-directed inhibitory control.

    “Nevertheless, top-down orienting is included in the framework as it relates to two different types of AB in anxiety: maintenance of attention on threat, and threat avoidance (Cisler & Koster, 2010), and is not the same as goal-directed inhibitory control.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cisler & Koster, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Anxiety disorders are characterised by heightened amygdala response to threat cues, and dysfunctional connectivity between the amygdala and prefrontal cortical regions which support cognitive control and emotion regulation.

    “Anxiety disorders are characterised by heightened amygdala response to threat cues, and dysfunctional connectivity between the amygdala and prefrontal cortical regions which support cognitive control and emotion regulation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Cortical regions are involved in both conscious and nonconscious processing of emotional information; and these multiple parallel sources of information are automatically integrated in subcortical regions, such as the amygdala and pulvinar.

    “They conclude from their review of neuroscience research that cortical regions are involved in both conscious and nonconscious processing of emotional information; and these multiple parallel sources of information are automatically integrated in subcortical regions, such as the amygdala and pulvinar.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pessoa & Adolphs, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Previous models of anxiety suggest that anxiety vulnerability and its maintenance, and ABs to threat, may stem from dysfunction in one or more cognitive functions, including automatic evaluation of threat value, automatic and strategic attention orienting to threat, and other top-down cognitive control processes.

    “Previous models of anxiety suggest that anxiety vulnerability and its maintenance, and ABs to threat, may stem from dysfunction in one or more cognitive functions, including automatic evaluation of the threat value of stimuli; automatic and strategic attention orienting to threat; and other cognitive control processes supported by top-down inhibitory control, which oppose bottom-up processing of”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    One dominant view is that subcortical brain regions are responsible for nonconscious evaluation of stimulus threat value, including the amygdala and pulvinar.

    “From a neuroscience perspective, one dominant view is that subcortical brain regions are responsible for nonconscious evaluation of stimulus threat value.These include the amygdala and pulvinar, which are widely regarded as primitive brain structures in evolutionary terms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The primary role of the amygdala is to coordinate and modulate functioning of cortical networks during the evaluation of the biological or motivational significance of stimuli.

    “A more recent view, put forward by Pessoa and Adolphs (2010), is that the primary role of the amygdala is to coordinate and modulate functioning of cortical networks during the evaluation of the biological or motivational significance of stimuli.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pessoa and Adolphs (2010) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The amygdala is involved not only in automatic processing of threat-related information, but also in processing emotionally salient information more generally.

    “The amygdala is involved not only in automatic processing of threat-related information, but also in processing emotionally salient information more generally (Sergerie, Chochol, & Armony, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sergerie, Chochol, & Armony, 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Strategic reason-based appraisal corresponds to secondary appraisal (or reappraisal) in Beck and Clark (1997), and guided threat evaluation in Bar-Haim et al. (2007).

    “Another top-down process is strategic reason-based appraisal, which corresponds to secondary appraisal (or reappraisal) in Beck and Clark (1997), and guided threat evaluation in Bar-Haim et al. (2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Beck and Clark (1997) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bar-Haim et al. (2007) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The key role of the stimulus-salience evaluation mechanism is not only to identify whether an unattended stimulus has high motivational salience for the individual, but also to modulate processing in other bottom-up and top-down systems in favour of prioritising motivationally important stimuli.

    “The key role of this stimulus-salience evaluation mechanism is not only to identify whether an unattended stimulus has high motivational salience for the individual, but also to modulate processing in other bottom-up and top-down systems in favour of prioritising motivationally important stimuli.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Amygdala response to emotional stimuli is reduced by both attention control and reappraisal, which are supported by a common neural network in frontoparietal regions shared by cognitive control processes.

    “For example, amygdala response to emotional stimuli is reduced by both attention control (focusing on a primary task rather than emotional distractors) and reappraisal (reinterpreting the meaning of emotional stimuli), which are supported by a common neural network in frontoparietal regions shared by cognitive control processes (Kanske et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kanske et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Anxiety-proneness and anxiety disorders may reflect malfunction in more than one operation of the stimulus-salience evaluation mechanism, including exaggerated automatic evaluation of threat value, excessive outputs to other processes, and inadequate modulation by top-down cognitive control.

    “Anxiety-proneness and anxiety disorders may reflect malfunction in more than one operation of this mechanism, including (i) exaggerated automatic evaluation of the threat value of stimuli, (ii) excessive outputs to other bottom-up and top-down processes, and (iii) inadequate modulation of its activity by inputs from top-down cognitive-control processes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Of these functions, goal-directed inhibitory control may be particularly important in opposing processing of task-irrelevant threat information, as well as contributing to top-down cognitive control functions in general.

    “Of these functions, goal-directed inhibitory control may be particularly important in opposing processing of task-irrelevant threat information (Eysenck et al., 2007), as well as contributing to topdown cognitive control functions in general (Miyake & Friedman, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Eysenck et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Miyake & Friedman, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    AB in initial attention orienting towards threat may not be the primary cause of anxiety; this and other ABs may contribute to it.

    “While AB in initial attention orienting towards threat may not be the primary cause of anxiety; this and other ABs may contribute to it, as noted by previous models of anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    ABs in orienting towards and away from threat complement AB in threat-distractor interference, which also reflects imbalance between bottom-up and top-down systems, and may also contribute to anxiety.

    “These ABs in orienting towards and away from threat complement AB in threat-distractor interference, which also reflects imbalance between bottom-up and top-down systems, and may also contribute to anxiety (e.g., difficulty in suppressing AB in threat-distractor interference, due to enhanced bottom-up interrupt and insufficient task-related cognitive control, may increase intrusive negative”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    These tasks typically use relatively long stimulus-exposure durations for threat cues (e.g., 500 ms or more) which allows influences of both automatic and strategic orienting.

    “These tasks typically use relatively long stimulus-exposure durations for threat cues (e.g., 500 ms or more) which allows influences of both automatic and strategic orienting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Anxious individuals show increased automatic initial orienting to minor threats because the stimuli have been evaluated as having disproportionately high threat value, due to a bias in automatic threat-evaluation processes.

    “Another view is that anxious individuals show increased automatic initial orienting to minor threats because the stimuli have been evaluated as having disproportionately high threat value, due to a bias in automatic threat-evaluation processes (Mogg & Bradley, 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mogg & Bradley, 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Repeatedly ignoring minor threat cues may strengthen top-down inhibitory control processes which oppose the influence of the bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation system, which prioritises threat processing and biases bottom-up and top-down orienting.

    “For example, repeatedly ignoring minor threat cues may strengthen top-down inhibitory control processes which oppose the influence of the bottom-up stimulussalience evaluation system, which prioritises threat processing and biases bottom-up and top-down orienting (Fig. 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Consequently, the stimulus-salience evaluation mechanism may exert a dominating modulatory influence over bottom-up and top-down processes, with resultant difficulty in sustaining adaptive goal-directed thought and action in the presence of minor threat cues.

    “Consequently, it may exert a dominating modulatory influence over bottom-up and top-down processes, with resultant difficulty in sustaining adaptive goal-directed thought and action in the presence of minor threat cues.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    This research does not clarify whether this bias is a correlate or cause of anxiety.

    “However, this research does not clarify whether this bias is a correlate or cause of anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The weak effect of ABM-threat-avoidance training on reducing anxiety could be explained by this ABM method being insufficiently effective in modifying the mechanisms responsible for both AB and anxiety.

    “The weak effect of ABM-threat-avoidance training on reducing anxiety could be explained by this ABM method being insufficiently effective in modifying the mechanisms responsible for both AB and anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Poor goal-directed inhibitory control may not only be an important mechanism contributing to ABs in anxiety, but it may also play a key role in intrusive negative thinking including rumination and worry.

    “Poor goal-directed inhibitory control may not only be an important mechanism contributing to ABs in anxiety, but it may also play a key role in intrusive negative thinking including rumination and worry (Kircanski, Johnson, Mateen, Bjork, & Gotlib, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kircanski, Johnson, Mateen, Bjork, & Gotlib, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Disengagement difficulty has also been defined as an AB component reflecting increased dwelling on threat, which may facilitate its more elaborative processing.

    “Disengagement difficulty has also been defined as an AB component reflecting increased dwelling on threat, which may facilitate its more elaborative processing (Fox et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fox et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    As these trial conditions differ in presence versus absence of task-irrelevant threat, slower RTs on threat-incongruent (relative to neutral-neutral) trials may reflect greater maintenance of spatial attention on threat, poor top-down threat-distractor inhibition, and/or enhanced bottom-up interrupt by threat which may slow RT.

    “As these trial conditions differ in presence versus absence of task-irrelevant threat, slower RTs on threatincongruent (relative to neutral-neutral) trials may reflect greater maintenance of spatial attention on threat, poor top-down threatdistractor inhibition, and/or enhanced bottom-up interrupt by threat which may slow RT.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    On emotional spatial-cueing tasks, slower RTs on invalid-threat versus invalid-nonthreat cue trials may reflect maintained spatial attention on the location of threat to facilitate its identification, poor attention control, and/or automatic interruption of task performance triggered by threat which does not involve spatial orienting.

    “For example, on emotional spatial-cueing tasks, slower RTs on invalid-threat versus invalid-nonthreat cue trials may reflect maintained spatial attention on the location of threat to facilitate its identification (Fox et al., 2001), poor attention control (Cisler & Koster, 2010;Eysenck et al., 2007), and/or automatic interruption of task performance triggered by threat which does not involve”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Fox et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cisler & Koster, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Eysenck et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    It is helpful to distinguish between bottom-up (automatic) and top-down sources of inhibition, which together influence the extent to which task-irrelevant threat cues influence task performance.

    “It is helpful to distinguish between bottom-up (automatic) and top-down sources of inhibition (Aron et al., 2014), which together influence the extent to which taskirrelevant threat cues influence task performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Aron et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The role of inhibitory control in various aspects of processing such as attention and memory requires further clarification.

    “While a key feature of this framework is the widely-used construct of inhibitory control (Diamond, 2013;Miyake & Friedman, 2012), its role in various aspects of processing such as attention and memory requires further clarification (Aron, Robbins, & Poldrack, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Aron, Robbins, & Poldrack, 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Specific mechanisms which may influence RT-based measures of AB on spatial attention tasks include bottom-up threat-salience evaluation, automatic interruption of ongoing activity, alerting, automatic orienting to threat, strategic orienting towards or away from threat, goal-directed inhibitory control, and switching from bottom-up threat processing to top-down goal-directed processing.

    “Specific mechanisms, which may influence RT-based measures of AB on spatial attention tasks, include bottom-up threat-salience evaluation (which biases other processes including orienting), automatic interruption (inhibition) of ongoing activity, alerting, automatic orienting to threat, strategic orienting towards or away from threat, goal-directed inhibitory control (which opposes the biasing”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The interrupt function contributes to a slowing effect of threat on task performance, while alerting contributes to a speeding effect of threat on RT.

    “The interrupt function contributes to a slowing effect of threat on task performance, while alerting contributes to a speeding effect of threat on RT.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    On emotional spatial-cueing tasks, faster RTs on invalid-threat versus invalid-nonthreat cue trials may reflect a spatial attention bias away from threat suggesting avoidance and/or bottom-up alerting triggered by threat which speeds RT.

    “while faster RTs on invalid-threat versus invalid-nonthreat cue trials may reflect a spatial attention bias away from threat suggesting avoidance (Yiend et al., 2015) and/or bottom-up alerting triggered by threat which speeds RT.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yiend et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Automatic orienting and interrupt functions may relate to a common circuit-breaker mechanism, but they are also separable, as threat cues may automatically interrupt performance on tasks independent of spatial orienting.

    “While automatic orienting and interrupt functions may relate to a common circuitbreaker mechanism (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002), they are also separable, as threat cues may automatically interrupt performance on tasks independent of spatial orienting (e.g., modified Stroop task using masked and unmasked threat stimuli; Algom et al., 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Corbetta & Shulman, 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Algom et al., 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Disengagement difficulty also refers to capture of attention by threat and difficulty redirecting attention to a new stimulus, related to poor attention control mediated by the prefrontal cortex.

    “It also refers to capture of attention by threat and difficulty redirecting attention to a new stimulus, related to poor attention control mediated by the prefrontal cortex (Cisler & Koster, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cisler & Koster, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Recent models of attention no longer uphold the distinction between separate shifting, engagement and disengagement components of orienting and distinguish between bottom-up and top-down influences on orienting.

    “Another advantage is that recent models of attention no longer uphold the distinction between separate shifting, engagement and disengagement components of orienting (Posner & Fan, 2008) and distinguish between bottom-up and topdown influences on orienting (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002;Petersen & Posner, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Posner & Fan, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Corbetta & Shulman, 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Petersen & Posner, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    ABs observed on spatial attention tasks include initial orienting towards threat, maintaining attention on threat, and avoidance of threat.

    “As noted earlier (Section 2.13), ABs observed on spatial attention tasks include initial orienting towards threat, maintaining attention on threat, and avoidance of threat.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Interventions which strengthen goal-directed inhibitory control, such as training individuals to ignore neutral task-irrelevant information on a flanker task, may be effective in reducing intrusive negative thinking and mood and in suppressing neural activity such as amygdala function associated with bottom-up threat bias on processing.

    “Interventions which strengthen goal-directed inhibitory control, such as training individuals to ignore neutral task-irrelevant information on a flanker task, may be effective in reducing intrusive negative thinking and mood (Cohen, Mor, & Henik, 2014) and in suppressing neural activity such as amygdala function associated with bottom-up threat bias on processing (Cohen et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cohen, Mor, & Henik, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cohen et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    According to Posner and Petersen's (1990) spotlight model of attention, disengagement refers to one specific component of visual orienting, distinct from shifting and engagement, with its own neural substrate (parietal cortex).

    “According to Posner and Petersen's (1990) influential spotlight model of attention, disengagement refers to one specific component of visual orienting, distinct from shifting and engagement, with its own neural substrate (parietal cortex).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Posner and Petersen's (1990) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In an extensive review of empirical evidence of ABs in anxiety, Van Bockstaele et al. (2014) concluded that, when recent studies were taken into account, the strength of the relationship between AB and anxiety seems less consistent than suggested by an earlier meta-analysis (Bar-Haim et al., 2007).

    “In an extensive review of empirical evidence of ABs in anxiety, Van Bockstaele et al. (2014) concluded that, when recent studies were taken into account, the strength of the relationship between AB and anxiety seems less consistent than suggested by an earlier meta-analysis (Bar-Haim et al., 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Van Bockstaele et al. (2014) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bar-Haim et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The AB index of threat-distractor interference is more commonly inferred from tasks that do not involve spatial orienting (e.g., modified Stroop task).

    “The AB index of threat-distractor interference is more commonly inferred from tasks that do not involve spatial orienting (e.g., modified Stroop task).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The conventional index of AB assessed at short stimulus durations (within 500 ms of stimulus onset) is widely held to reflect a bias in initial orienting of spatial attention to threat.

    “Thus, the conventional index of AB assessed at short stimulus durations (within 500 ms of stimulus onset) is widely held to reflect a bias in initial orienting of spatial attention to threat (MacLeod et al., 1986;Williams et al., 1988Williams et al., , 1997)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites MacLeod et al., 1986 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Williams et al., 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Williams et al., 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    On the visual-search task, slower RTs to detect nonthreat targets amongst threat distractors (relative to nonthreat targets amongst nonthreat distractors) may reflect multiple processes, including initial orienting to threat distractors and maintaining attention on them, automatic interruption/inhibition of task-related processes, and insufficient inhibitory control to oppose bottom-up bias and支持

    “On the visual-search task, slower RTs to detect nonthreat targets amongst threat distractors (relative to nonthreat targets amongst nonthreat distractors) may also reflect multiple processes.These may include initial orienting to threat distractors and maintaining attention on them (due to bias from the bottom-up threat-salience evaluation mechanism on automatic and strategic orienting), automatic”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    This framework proposes that anxiety stems from imbalance between bottom-up and top-down systems involved in threat evaluation, attention and cognitive control.

    “To recap, this framework proposes that anxiety stems from imbalance between bottom-up and top-down systems involved in threat evaluation, attention and cognitive control (Fig. 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Most studies of ABM-positive-search training found changes in AB measures for threat and positive stimuli, although these changes varied across studies.

    “Regarding effects of ABM-positive-search training on AB, most studies found changes in AB measures for threat and positive stimuli, although these changes varied across studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dandeneau et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites De Voogd et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Waters et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Anxiety may not be caused by dysfunction in an isolated process.

    “However, anxiety may not be caused by dysfunction in an isolated process”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The use of positive targets may make training more enjoyable and engaging, which may help treatment compliance.

    “The use of positive targets may make training more enjoyable and engaging, which may help treatment compliance (Rapee et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rapee et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    Single-session A-FACT reduces ABs (towards and away from threat) in high trait anxious individuals.

    “Their preliminary results suggest that single-session A-FACT reduces ABs (towards and away from threat)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zvielli et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The anxiolytic effect of ABM-positive-search training may not necessarily depend on using highly positive targets, given that it also includes calm targets which have relatively mild positive valence.

    “However, the anxiolytic effect of ABM-positive-search training may not necessarily depend on using highly positive targets, given that it also includes calm targets which have relatively mild positive valence (e.g., book, armchair).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Methods designed to promote goal-directed inhibitory control over threat distractor processing, without avoidant orienting, may be effective in reducing anxiety and attenuating ABs in orienting to threat.

    “methods which are designed to promote goal-directed inhibitory control over threat distractor processing, without avoidant orienting, may be effective in reducing anxiety and attenuating ABs in orienting to threat”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    It may be easier and more adaptive to strengthen positive/nonthreat goal priorities than to strengthen goal priorities which specify what to avoid.

    “Also, it may be easier and more adaptive to strengthen positive/nonthreat goal priorities (i.e., to attend to positive, calming and task-relevant information) than to strengthen goal priorities which specify what to avoid.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    Single-session PIM training is more effective than conventional ABM-threat-avoidance training in modifying AB to threat in a nonclinical sample.

    “and AB to threat in a nonclinical sample”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Notebaert et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The choice of goal-relevant stimuli may be an important parameter of ABM tasks.

    “However, the choice of goal-relevant stimuli may be another important parameter of ABM tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    ABM-threat-avoidance training is based on the premise that anxious individuals have an enhanced AB towards threat, and interventions which reduce this AB should reduce anxiety.

    “ABM-threat-avoidance training is based on the premise that anxious individuals have an enhanced AB towards threat, and interventions which reduce this AB should reduce anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites MacLeod & Clarke, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    ABM-threat-avoidance training may be inappropriate for anxious individuals who do not show pre-existing AB in orienting towards threat, whereas ABM-positive-search training seems potentially suitable for all anxious individuals, irrespective of whether they show AB in orienting towards or away from threat, or unstable AB.

    “Fifth, these methods may differ in suitability for anxious individuals; as ABM-threatavoidance training may be inappropriate for anxious individuals who do not show pre-existing AB in orienting towards threat (Eldar et al., 2012;Van Bockstaele et al., 2014), whereas ABM-positivesearch training seems potentially suitable for all anxious individuals, irrespective of whether they show AB in orienting”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Eldar et al., 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Van Bockstaele et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The premise of ABM-threat-avoidance training that anxious individuals are strongly characterised by AB in orienting to threat, and its reduction is necessary for anxiety reduction, is questioned.

    “This questions the premise of ABM-threat-avoidance training that anxious individuals are strongly characterised by AB in orienting to threat (indexed by the visual-probe task), and its reduction is necessary for anxiety reduction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Studies comparing ABM-threat-avoidance, inverse-ABM, and control attention training showed reduction in anxiety symptoms from pre- to post-training, irrespective of the type of training task, and without reducing AB to threat on spatial-attention tasks.

    “These showed reduction in anxiety symptoms from pre-to post-training, irrespective of the type of training task, and without reducing AB to threat on spatial-attention tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Boettcher et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Heeren et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites McNally et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The term ABM-threat-avoidance training does not accurately reflect the operationalisation of ABM-positive-search-training, which instructs participants to prioritise attention-search goals for positive information, rather than threat avoidance.

    “Fourth, the term, ABM-threat-avoidancetraining does not accurately reflect the operationalisation of ABM-positive-search-training, which instructs participants to prioritise attention-search goals for positive (e.g., good/calm) information, rather than threat avoidance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    One study found that training attention towards threat reduced social anxiety more than a control training condition, possibly due to enhanced exposure to threat cues.

    “One study unexpectedly found that training attention towards threat reduced social anxiety more than a control training condition; which may have been due to the attend-threat training condition enhancing exposure to threat cues (Boettcher et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Boettcher et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Training an individual to repeatedly direct attention to the less negative alternative of two items could subsequently bias responses on self-report measures of anxiety towards less negative response choices, resulting in lower anxiety scores.

    “For example, training an individual to repeatedly direct attention to the less negative alternative of two items could subsequently bias responses on selfreport measures of anxiety towards less negative response choices, resulting in lower anxiety scores.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Attention training methods (including ABM-threat-avoidance training) may have an anxiolytic effect, mediated by improved cognitive control, which does not depend on reducing AB in orienting to threat.

    “Thus, attention training methods (including ABM-threat-avoidance training) may have an anxiolytic effect, mediated by improved cognitive control, which does not depend on reducing AB in orienting to threat.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    These ABM methods may differ in effects on goal-directed top-down cognitive control functions.

    “Third, these ABM methods may differ in effects on goal-directed top-down cognitive control functions (see Section 5.4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    ABM-threat-avoidance training assumes that the anxiolytic effect of ABM training depends on reducing AB to threat, as indexed by AB in orienting towards threat.

    “ABMthreat-avoidance training assumes that the anxiolytic effect of ABM training depends on reducing AB to threat, as indexed by AB in orienting towards threat”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites MacLeod & Clarke, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    AB to threat is not a unitary construct; its manifestations include ABs in orienting towards and away from threat and AB in threat-distractor interference.

    “(i) AB to threat is not a unitary construct: its manifestations include ABs in orienting towards and away from threat (i.e., initial orienting to threat, maintained attention on threat, threat avoidance) and AB in threat-distractor interference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The framework's components correspond to core cognitive functions identified by models of attention, cognitive control and stimulus-salience evaluation.

    “Its components correspond to core cognitive functions identified by models of attention, cognitive control and stimulus-salience evaluation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Most ABM studies assess AB in orienting (e.g., visual-probe task), while some assess threat-distractor interference (e.g., modified Stroop task), or use AB measures which may reflect both (e.g., spatial-cueing, visual-search tasks).

    “While most ABM studies assess AB in orienting (e.g., visual-probe task), some assess threat-distractor interference (e.g., modified Stroop task), or use AB measures which may reflect both (e.g., spatial-cueing, visual-search tasks; see Section 4.4.1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Some of these confounds may contribute to findings of stronger ABM effects in laboratory than home settings.

    “some of which may contribute to findings of stronger ABM effects in laboratory than home settings”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Inclusion of highly positive targets may enhance the efficacy of ABM-positive-search training.

    “However, inclusion of highly positive targets may enhance its efficacy (e.g., by improving positive mood, engagement with training, and generalisation across diverse stimuli).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Individual differences in ABs are not specific to threat cues in anxiety, as they are also found for other motivationally or personally salient information, for example, in illness and pain, and for rewards such as food cues in obesity and drug cues in addiction.

    “Individual differences in ABs are not specific to threat cues in anxiety, as they are also found for other motivationally or personally salient information, for example, in illness and pain (Hou et al., 2014;Todd et al., 2015); as well as for rewards, such as food cues in obesity (Castellanos et al., 2009) and drug cues in addiction (Field & Cox, 2008;Field, Mogg, & Bradley, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hou et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Todd et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Castellanos et al., 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    IBM may encourage a response strategy to select less negative answers on self-report measures of anxiety.

    “As IBM may encourage a response strategy to select less negative answers on self-report measures of anxiety”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Anxiety and ABs to threat are consequences of imbalance in these systems.

    “Anxiety and ABs to threat are consequences of imbalance in these systems.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The cognitive control system exerts goal-directed influences on orienting, which may maintain attention on threat, suppress AB in orienting to threat, or elicit AB away from threat.

    “The cognitive control system exerts goal-directed influences on orienting, which may maintain attention on threat (threat monitoring goal), suppress AB in orienting to threat or elicit AB away from threat (e.g., reflecting task-focused or distress-reduction goals).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The anxiolytic effect of ABM-positive-search training may not depend on using highly positive target stimuli, as it also uses calm nonthreat targets which have relatively mild positive valence.

    “(viii) The anxiolytic effect of ABM-positive-search training may not depend on using highly positive target stimuli, as it also uses calm nonthreat targets which have relatively mild positive valence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Strengthening threat-distractor inhibition, without involving spatial orienting, may be beneficial.

    “For example, strengthening threat-distractor inhibition, without involving spatial orienting, may be beneficial.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Both bottom-up and top-down processes may contribute to interpretation bias, which has been targeted by computer-delivered interpretation bias modification (IBM) training.

    “Both bottom-up and top-down processes may contribute to this bias, which has been targeted by computer-delivered interpretation bias modification (IBM) training (Lau, 2013;MacLeod & Mathews, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lau, 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites MacLeod & Mathews, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The present framework has potential relevance for work on ABs in other conditions, given that exaggerated ABs may reflect imbalance between bottom-up automatic processing of stimuli with high motivational salience and top-down cognitive control processes.

    “The present framework has potential relevance for such work, given that exaggerated ABs may reflect imbalance between bottom-up automatic processing of stimuli which have high motivational salience for the individual (aversive or reward-related) and top-down cognitive control processes, in a variety of health-related and psychological disorders.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    The proposed framework builds on and integrates proposals from previous cognitive models of anxiety and models of attention and cognitive control.

    “The proposed framework (summarised in Fig. 4) builds on and integrates proposals from previous cognitive models of anxiety (Fig. 2), and models of attention and cognitive control (Fig. 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Some findings suggest that ABM and control attention training may reduce anxiety without reducing AB in orienting to threat, perhaps by improving cognitive control.

    “as some findings suggest that ABM and control attention training may reduce anxiety, without reducing AB in orienting to threat, perhaps by improving cognitive control (e.g., Badura-Brack et al. 2015;Heeren, Mogoas ¸e, McNally et al., 2015;Boettcher et al., 2013;McNally et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Badura-Brack et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Heeren et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Boettcher et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    ABM training which enhances top-down cognitive control, including threat-distractor inhibition, may reduce anxiety symptoms of anxious individuals, irrespective of whether they show pre-existing AB in orienting towards threat, away from threat, or unstable AB.

    “(ix) ABM training which enhances top-down cognitive control, including threat-distractor inhibition, may reduce anxiety symptoms of anxious individuals, irrespective of whether they show pre-existing AB in orienting towards threat, away from threat, or unstable AB.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Cognitive models of anxiety predict increased attention to threat in anxiety and a bias in interpretative processes, supported by empirical evidence of an increased tendency for anxious individuals to interpret ambiguous information in a negative or threat-related manner.

    “Cognitive models of anxiety, reviewed earlier, not only predict increased attention to threat in anxiety but also a bias in interpretative processes; which is supported by empirical evidence of an increased tendency for anxious individuals to interpret ambiguous information in a negative or threat-related manner (see Mathews & MacLeod, 2005; for a review).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mathews & MacLeod, 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Anxious individuals do not consistently show AB in orienting towards threat and may show threat vigilance, threat avoidance, or unstable AB.

    “(iv) Anxious individuals do not consistently show AB in orienting towards threat (e.g., on the visual-probe task), and may show threat vigilance, threat avoidance, or unstable AB (rapidly fluctuating between vigilance and avoidance).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bar-Haim et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

138 of 138

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Attention bias towards threat plays a causal role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety.

    “ABM is based on the assumption that the AB towards threat plays a causal role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety (MacLeod et al., 2002;MacLeod & Mathews, 2012;Van Bockstaele et al., 2014).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Attention bias towards threat is automatic and habit-driven.

    “ABM-threat-avoidance training typically involves hundreds of training trials, following the assumption that the AB towards threat is automatic and habit-driven.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    ABs are driven by both top-down and bottom-up processes, which prioritise goal-relevant stimuli and task-irrelevant threat stimuli, respectively.

    “The framework assumes that ABs are driven by both top-down and bottom-up processes, which prioritise goalrelevant stimuli and task-irrelevant threat stimuli, respectively.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The most commonly used stimulus duration on the visual-probe task is 500 ms.

    “The most commonly used stimulus duration on the visual-probe task is 500 ms (which is often used in ABM studies to both modify and assess AB).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Exposure is a well-established treatment approach for reducing the subjective threat value of feared stimuli.

    “Exposure is a well-established treatment approach for reducing the subjective threat value of feared stimuli.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In everyday life, not every situation contains a highly positive stimulus to focus on.

    “in everyday life, not every situation contains a highly positive stimulus to focus on”
6 of 6

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Acceptance-based interventions may augment attention interventions that focus on discrete attention mechanisms to improve therapeutic outcomes.

    “Furthermore acceptance-based interventions may augment attention interventions that focus on discrete attention mechanisms to improve therapeutic outcomes (Mogg & Bradley, 2016).”

    From Testing the differential effects of acceptance and attention-based psychological interventions on intrusive thoughts and worry (2017) · cites this paper as Mogg & Bradley, 2016

    The Concluding comments propose that interventions engaging multiple cognitive-control functions may be more effective than those targeting a single attention bias. They do not propose adding acceptance-based interventions to attention interventions, so the specific augmentation claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Individuals with anxiety have broader deficits in attention control and executive processing, are more readily distracted and unable to focus on top-down goal-directed tasks, instead devoting limited attentional resources to negative distractors.

    “Individuals with anxiety also have broader deficits in attention control and executive processing, are more readily distracted and unable to focus on top-down ‘goal-directed’ tasks, instead devoting limited attentional resources to negative distractors (e.g. Attention Control Theory, Eysenck et al., 2007, see recent integrative review by Mogg & Bradley, 2016).”

    From Testing the differential effects of acceptance and attention-based psychological interventions on intrusive thoughts and worry (2017) · cites this paper as Mogg & Bradley, 2016

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Interventions that target discrete attentional biases have mixed therapeutic effects.

    “This contrasts with the mixed therapeutic effects of interventions that target discrete attentional biases e.g. threat avoidance attention training (see review in Mogg & Bradley, 2016).”

    From Testing the differential effects of acceptance and attention-based psychological interventions on intrusive thoughts and worry (2017) · cites this paper as Mogg & Bradley, 2016

  • Empirical research indicates several manifestations of anxiety-related ABs, which are commonly uncorrelated.

    “Empirical research indicates several manifestations of anxiety-related ABs, which are commonly uncorrelated [6,18,25,53].”

    From Anxiety and Threat-Related Attention: Cognitive-Motivational Framework and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [6]

  • ABs in attention-orienting include initial orienting towards threat, maintaining attention on threat, and orienting away from threat.

    “ABs in attentionorienting are observed on spatial attention tasks (e.g., visual probe and eye-tracking tasks), and include initial orienting towards threat, maintaining attention on threat (also known as delayed disengagement), and orienting away from threat [6,25,29,53,54].”

    From Anxiety and Threat-Related Attention: Cognitive-Motivational Framework and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [6]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

  • Percentage for five of 47 comparisons is incorrect

    Minor

    Five of the stated 47 group comparisons is 10.6%, not 9%.

    Reported 9 · recomputed 10.638298

  • Percentage for 42 of 47 comparisons is incorrect

    Minor

    The stated 47 group comparisons include 42 using visual-probe or spatial-cueing tasks. That is 89.4%, not 91%.

    Reported 91 · recomputed 89.361702

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Öhman, 1994, The psychophysiology of emotion: Evolutionary and nonconscious origins, Vol. 1, 197

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P.
Affiliations
University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Mogg, Karin
ORCID
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
87
Pages
76-108
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.brat.2016.08.001
OpenAlex
W2479382782
Cited by
313
References
257
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 3
FWCI
3.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
anxiety disorders, attention bias to threat, attentional bias modification, threat avoidance, threat detection, cognitive control, inhibitory control, top-down and bottom-up processes, top-down attention
MeSH terms
Attentional Bias, Anxiety, Avoidance Learning, Cognition, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Teaching, Therapy, Computer-Assisted

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review