The DOI matches its Crossref record; 262 of the 263 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; none of the 313 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification
Open accessAbstract
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.
Checked 2026-10-09 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
182 Not checked yet · 110 Own interpretation · 14 No basis given
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, despite some inconsistencies, several findings support the proposal that high trait attention control attenuates AB for threat in anxious individuals.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.5. Influence of trait attention control on ABs
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.2. Time-course of ABs in orienting: initial orienting, maintained attention, threat avoidance
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and when follow-up data are evaluated (Heeren, Mogoase, Philippot et al., 2015).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 1.3. Therapeutic effectiveness of ABM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Heeren, Mogoase, Philippot et al., 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 1.1. Methods used in assessing AB
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bar-Haim et al., 2007 source
plaincorrelationaln = 2,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 1.2. Methods used in ABM training
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Van Bockstaele et al., 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Attention bias towards threat plays a causal role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The efficacy of ABM-threat-avoidance training seems particularly disappointing when delivered in home-based, rather than laboratory or clinic settings (Cristea, Kok et al., 2015;MacLeod & Clarke, 2015).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 1.3. Therapeutic effectiveness of ABM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cristea, Kok et al., 2015
- Not checked yetcites MacLeod & Clarke, 2015
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent meta-analyses and reviews of random controlled trials (RCTs) report small-to-moderate effect sizes of ABM on anxiety symptoms (Cristea, Kok et al., 2015;Cristea, Mogoas ¸e et al., 2015;Hakamata et al., 2010;Hallion & Ruscio, 2011;Heeren, Mogoase, Philippot et al., 2015;Mogoas ¸e et al., 2014;Van Bockstaele et al., 2014).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 1.3. Therapeutic effectiveness of ABM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cristea, Kok et al., 2015
- Not checked yetcites Cristea, Mogoas et al., 2015
- Not checked yetcites Hakamata et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This meta-analysis indicated that symptom-improvement effect sizes of several comparisons which used ABM-positive-search training were larger than the average effect size of the whole dataset (Dandeneau et al., 2007; Study 3a and 3b; Waters et al., 2013).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > Automatic threat registration
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In one study, almost a half of anxious children recruited for ABM-threat-avoidance training were excluded because they showed no pre-existing bias towards threat (Eldar et al., 2012).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 1.2. Methods used in ABM training
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eldar et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the disappointing findings of ABM may apply mainly to ABM-threatavoidance training.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > Automatic threat registration
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 87
- Probably not a substantial claim. 64
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.6. Temporal instability of ABs in attention orienting
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Badura-Brack et al., 2015 source
plaindirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.6. Temporal instability of ABs in attention orienting
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zvielli et al., 2014 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5. Implications for ABM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cristea, Kok et al., 2015
- Not checked yetcites MacLeod & Clarke, 2015
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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)).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.2. ABM-positive-search training
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.2. Time-course of ABs in orienting: initial orienting, maintained attention, threat avoidance
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Armstrong & Olatunji, 2012 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.3. Influence of symptom profile on ABs in orienting
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.3. Influence of symptom profile on ABs in orienting
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Salum et al., 2013 source
- Not checked yetcites Waters, Bradley & Mogg, 2014
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While stressors characteristically increase state anxiety and emotional distress, they have mixed effects on ABs to threat.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.4. Influence of stressors on ABs
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites MacLeod & Mathews, 2012
- Not checked yetcites MacLeod et al., 2002 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > Automatic threat registration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Waters et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 1.1. Methods used in assessing AB
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Van Bockstaele et al., 2014 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > Abstract
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 1.2. Methods used in ABM training
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Williams et al., 1988, 1997
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 1.2. Methods used in ABM training
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kessler et al., 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 1.3. Therapeutic effectiveness of ABM
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mogoas et al., 2014
plaindirectn = 2,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.3. Evolutionary function of nonconscious threat evaluation processes ( €
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eysenck, 1997
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.3. Evolutionary function of nonconscious threat evaluation processes ( €
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eysenck, 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“According to the 1997 model,”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.1. Automatic and strategic schema-based processing in anxiety
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Williams et al., 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Attention bias towards threat plays a causal role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.1. Automatic and strategic schema-based processing in anxiety
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Williams et al., 1988, 1997
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.3. Evolutionary function of nonconscious threat evaluation processes ( €
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This model also suggests that early AB towards threat increases vulnerability to and maintenance of anxiety disorders.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.1. Automatic and strategic schema-based processing in anxiety
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Williams et al., 1988, 1997
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Attention bias towards threat plays a causal role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.3. Evolutionary function of nonconscious threat evaluation processes ( €
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Beck and Clark propose that anxiety reflects the ineffective use of effortful processing in counteracting threat-related schema-driven processing.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2. Diverse cognitive views of the role of attention in anxiety
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Beck & Clark, 1997 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.3. Evolutionary function of nonconscious threat evaluation processes ( €
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mogg et al., 1987 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.1. Automatic and strategic schema-based processing in anxiety
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mogg & Bradley, 1998 source
- Not checked yetcites Mogg, Bradley et al., 2000
- Not checked yetcites Wilson & MacLeod, 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.3. Evolutionary function of nonconscious threat evaluation processes ( €
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fox et al., 2001 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.1. Automatic and strategic schema-based processing in anxiety
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ohman, 1993, 1994
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.3. Evolutionary function of nonconscious threat evaluation processes ( €
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ohman & Soares, 1993, 1994
- Not checked yetcites Dolan & Vuillemier, 2003 source
- Not checked yetcites LeDoux, 1996
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.3. Evolutionary function of nonconscious threat evaluation processes ( €
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997
- Not checked yetcites Rothbart, Derryberry, & Posner, 1994
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.3. Evolutionary function of nonconscious threat evaluation processes ( €
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2. Diverse cognitive views of the role of attention in anxiety
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Beck et al., 1985
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.3. Evolutionary function of nonconscious threat evaluation processes ( €
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stout, Shackman, & Larson, 2013
- Not checked yetcites Stout, Shackman, Johnson, & Larson, 2015
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.3. Evolutionary function of nonconscious threat evaluation processes ( €
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While avoidant attention strategies may reduce immediate distress, they may be unhelpful in the long-term by interfering with habituation and thus maintaining anxiety.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.3. Evolutionary function of nonconscious threat evaluation processes ( €
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Based on their review of cognitive neuroscience evidence, Corbetta and Shulman (2002) described two main attention systems: goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.4. Stimulus-driven and goal-directed attention (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Corbetta & Shulman, 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The multiple demand system comprises a network of prefrontal and parietal regions, which is activated by a diverse range of challenging cognitive tasks.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.8. Diamond's (2013) framework of executive functions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duncan, 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 2.13. Overview of diverse views of cognitive mechanisms in anxiety
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“studies of self-reported attention control in healthy young adults suggest that poor cognitive flexibility relates more closely to depression than anxiety symptoms”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.10. Individual differences in attention and cognitive control
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Olafsson et al., 2011 source
- Not checked yetcites Reinholdt-Dunne, Mogg, & Bradley, 2013
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.6. Petersen and Posner's (2012) updated model of attention
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Petersen & Posner, 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.10. Individual differences in attention and cognitive control
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3. Models of attention and executive control systems
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Posner & Petersen, 1990 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.1. Core components of framework
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3. Models of attention and executive control systems
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Desimone & Duncan, 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The preceding overview indicates that there is no clear consensus regarding the organisation of attention and executive control functions (Section 3; Fig. 3a).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.1. Core components of framework
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.1. Core components of framework
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.10. Individual differences in attention and cognitive control
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sylvester et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.5. Selective attention in perceptual and cognitive control processes (Lavie, 2005)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.10. Individual differences in attention and cognitive control
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Petersen & Posner, 2012 source
- Not checked yetcites Posner & Fan, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Posner & Rothbart, 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Diamond (2013) broadens Miyake et al.'s (2000) model and, based on a review of empirical evidence, describes three core executive functions.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.8. Diamond's (2013) framework of executive functions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Diamond, 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.10. Individual differences in attention and cognitive control
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Snyder, 2013 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.10. Individual differences in attention and cognitive control
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sylvester et al., 2012 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.6. Petersen and Posner's (2012) updated model of attention
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, training individuals to ignore non-emotional task-irrelevant stimuli may enhance frontoparietal network function and attention control, and thereby help reduce anxiety.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 3.10. Individual differences in attention and cognitive control
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.1. Core components of framework
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3. Cognitive mechanisms contributing to anxiety
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.1. Bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pessoa & Adolphs, 2010 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These functions are interrelated and contribute to a unitary construct of cognitive control (Duncan, 2010;Miyake & Friedman, 2012;Miyake et al., 2000).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.1. Core components of framework
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Inhibitory control is a shared feature of top-down processes and may be subsumed under a common cognitive control factor (Miyake & Friedman, 2012).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.1. Core components of framework
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Miyake & Friedman, 2012 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The same may apply to other functions, such as cognitive flexibility, or bottom-up spatial orienting (Eysenck et al., 2007;Sylvester et al., 2012).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.2. Cognitive correlates of anxiety
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This fear circuit is involved in evaluation and detection of threat cues, eliciting and regulating emotional responses, and fear learning and extinction (LeDoux, 2012).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.1. Bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites LeDoux, 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.1. Core components of framework
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cisler & Koster, 2010 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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 and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.1. Bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.1. Bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pessoa & Adolphs, 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3. Cognitive mechanisms contributing to anxiety
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.1. Bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.1. Bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pessoa and Adolphs (2010) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.1. Bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sergerie, Chochol, & Armony, 2008 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.1. Core components of framework
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.1. Bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.1. Bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kanske et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.1. Bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.3. Cognitive control processes
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.2. Bottom-up and top-down attention orienting
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.2. Bottom-up and top-down attention orienting
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.2. Bottom-up and top-down attention orienting
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.2. Bottom-up and top-down attention orienting
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mogg & Bradley, 1998 source
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.2. Bottom-up and top-down attention orienting
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.1. Bottom-up stimulus-salience evaluation processes
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this research does not clarify whether this bias is a correlate or cause of anxiety.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.2. Bottom-up and top-down attention orienting
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.2. Bottom-up and top-down attention orienting
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.3. Cognitive control processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kircanski, Johnson, Mateen, Bjork, & Gotlib, 2015
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fox et al., 2001 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.3. Cognitive control processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aron et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.3. Cognitive control processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aron, Robbins, & Poldrack, 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interrupt function contributes to a slowing effect of threat on task performance, while alerting contributes to a speeding effect of threat on RT.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yiend et al., 2015 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cisler & Koster, 2010 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.3.3. Cognitive control processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen, Mor, & Henik, 2014
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2015
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Posner and Petersen's (1990) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The AB index of threat-distractor interference is more commonly inferred from tasks that do not involve spatial orienting (e.g., modified Stroop task).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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)).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites MacLeod et al., 1986 source
- Not checked yetcites Williams et al., 1988
- Not checked yetcites Williams et al., 1997
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 4.4.1. Mechanisms underlying ABs on spatial attention tasks
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5. Implications for ABM
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.2. ABM-positive-search training
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, anxiety may not be caused by dysfunction in an isolated process”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.4. Do different mechanisms underlie effects of ABM-threatavoidance and ABM-positive-search training?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The use of positive targets may make training more enjoyable and engaging, which may help treatment compliance (Rapee et al., 2013).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.4. Do different mechanisms underlie effects of ABM-threatavoidance and ABM-positive-search training?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rapee et al., 2013 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Their preliminary results suggest that single-session A-FACT reduces ABs (towards and away from threat)”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > Several other novel ABM methods have recently been described.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zvielli et al., 2015 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.4. Do different mechanisms underlie effects of ABM-threatavoidance and ABM-positive-search training?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.4. Do different mechanisms underlie effects of ABM-threatavoidance and ABM-positive-search training?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.4. Do different mechanisms underlie effects of ABM-threatavoidance and ABM-positive-search training?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and AB to threat in a nonclinical sample”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > Several other novel ABM methods have recently been described.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Notebaert et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the choice of goal-relevant stimuli may be another important parameter of ABM tasks.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.4. Do different mechanisms underlie effects of ABM-threatavoidance and ABM-positive-search training?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.6. Should ABM-positive-search training be construed as ABMthreat-avoidance training?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites MacLeod & Clarke, 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.6. Should ABM-positive-search training be construed as ABMthreat-avoidance training?
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.6. Should ABM-positive-search training be construed as ABMthreat-avoidance training?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.6. Should ABM-positive-search training be construed as ABMthreat-avoidance training?
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.6. Should ABM-positive-search training be construed as ABMthreat-avoidance training?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.5. Role of exposure
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boettcher et al., 2013 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.6. Should ABM-positive-search training be construed as ABMthreat-avoidance training?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.6. Should ABM-positive-search training be construed as ABMthreat-avoidance training?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, these ABM methods may differ in effects on goal-directed top-down cognitive control functions (see Section 5.4).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.6. Should ABM-positive-search training be construed as ABMthreat-avoidance training?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.6. Should ABM-positive-search training be construed as ABMthreat-avoidance training?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites MacLeod & Clarke, 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.8. Summary of proposals relevant to ABM research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Its components correspond to core cognitive functions identified by models of attention, cognitive control and stimulus-salience evaluation.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.8. Summary of proposals relevant to ABM research
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.6. Should ABM-positive-search training be construed as ABMthreat-avoidance training?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“some of which may contribute to findings of stronger ABM effects in laboratory than home settings”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.6. Should ABM-positive-search training be construed as ABMthreat-avoidance training?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, inclusion of highly positive targets may enhance its efficacy (e.g., by improving positive mood, engagement with training, and generalisation across diverse stimuli).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.8. Summary of proposals relevant to ABM research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 6.1. ABs in other conditions
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As IBM may encourage a response strategy to select less negative answers on self-report measures of anxiety”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 6.2. Interpretation bias modification in anxiety
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Anxiety and ABs to threat are consequences of imbalance in these systems.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.8. Summary of proposals relevant to ABM research
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.8. Summary of proposals relevant to ABM research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.8. Summary of proposals relevant to ABM research
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, strengthening threat-distractor inhibition, without involving spatial orienting, may be beneficial.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.8. Summary of proposals relevant to ABM research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 6.2. Interpretation bias modification in anxiety
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lau, 2013 source
- Not checked yetcites MacLeod & Mathews, 2012
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 6.1. ABs in other conditions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.8. Summary of proposals relevant to ABM research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.6. Should ABM-positive-search training be construed as ABMthreat-avoidance training?
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(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.”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.8. Summary of proposals relevant to ABM research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 6.2. Interpretation bias modification in anxiety
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mathews & MacLeod, 2005 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“(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).”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 5.8. Summary of proposals relevant to ABM research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bar-Haim et al., 2007 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“Another explanation for poor outcomes concerns the target process: if AB in orienting towards threat does not play a strong causal role in anxiety, this may explain the inconsistent effects of ABM threat-avoidance training [6,11,12,18].”
From Anxiety and Threat-Related Attention: Cognitive-Motivational Framework and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“In sum, anxiety-related ABs likely reflect the current motivational/goal state of the individual (e.g., to detect, monitor, and/or avoid threat), that is in turn influenced by individual differences (e.g., anxiety/fear/trauma, attention control) and situational variables (e.g., threat duration/severity) ([6] for evidence).”
From Anxiety and Threat-Related Attention: Cognitive-Motivational Framework and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“Hence, anxiety-related ABs vary between threat vigilance and avoidance [ 5 0 5 _ T D $ D I F F ] [6,19,25,29,36].”
From Anxiety and Threat-Related Attention: Cognitive-Motivational Framework and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“AB assessment methods include visual probe, spatial cueing, modified Stroop, flanker, and visual search tasks [6,7,12,19,35,53-55,86,98-100].”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“47 group comparisons.Of these comparisons, 42 (91%) used visual-probe or spatial-cueing training tasks, and five (9%) used ABM-”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 1.3. Therapeutic effectiveness of ABM
Reported 9 · recomputed 10.638298
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“43 controlled trials, with over 2000 participants providing 47 group comparisons.Of these comparisons, 42 (91%) used visual-probe or spatial-cueing training tasks”
§ Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification > 1.3. Therapeutic effectiveness of ABM
Reported 91 · recomputed 89.361702
Citations
Cites
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593 · Cited by 20,391
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
Diamond, A. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 · Cited by 13,268
Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn755 · Cited by 12,881
An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · Cited by 12,803
The Brain's Default Network: Anatomy, Function, and Relevance to Disease
Buckner, R. L., Andrews‐Hanna, J. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2008) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1196/annals.1440.011 · Cited by 9,761
Neural Mechanisms of Selective Visual Attention
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205 · Cited by 8,388
The attention system of the human brain
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325 · Cited by 8,070 · cited 4×
“…2012), rather than the earlier spotlight model of attention which proposed separate orienting mechanisms of shift, engagement and disengagement, each with distinct neural correlates (Posner & Petersen, 1990), as the latter view is no longer supported by neuroscience findings (Posner & Fan, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialControlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.1.1 · Cited by 5,902 · cited 3×
“…to rapid, unintentional, uncontrolled processes outside awareness (also described as bottom-up or stimulus-driven); whereas strategic refers to more controllable, intentional, and conscious processes (also described as top-down, or goal-directed; Isen & Diamond, 1989; Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAnxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336 · Cited by 5,289
The cognitive control of emotion
OCHSNER, K., & GROSS, J. (2005) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.010 · Cited by 4,495
Large-scale brain networks and psychopathology: a unifying triple network model
Menon, V. (2011) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.08.003 · Cited by 4,168
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721411429458 · Cited by 3,944
Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study.
Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1 · Cited by 3,721
Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks
Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/089892902317361886 · Cited by 3,717
(1996) · Cited by 3,692
The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research participants.
Tottenham, N., Tanaka, J. W., Leon, A. C., McCarry, T., Nurse, M., Hare, T. A., Marcus, D. J., Westerlund, A., Casey, B., & Nelson, C. (2009) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2008.05.006 · Cited by 3,454
The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses
Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1 · Cited by 3,445
The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after
Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2012) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150525 · Cited by 3,439
Etkin, A., & Wager, T. D. (2007) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07030504 · Cited by 3,391 · cited 1×
“…et al., 2014; see Eimer, 2014 for a review of these methods), and fMRI and MEG to examine activity of brain networks involved in stimulus evaluation, attention, and cognitive control (e.g., Buhle et al., 2014; Etkin & Wager, 2007; Maratos et al., 2009; Monk et al., 2008; Pessoa & Adolphs, 2010).”
MethodAttentional bias in emotional disorders
MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.95.1.15 · Cited by 3,152
(1985) · Cited by 2,882
The amygdala: vigilance and emotion
Davis, M., & Whalen, P. J. (2001) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4000812 · Cited by 2,882
Attentional bias in emotional disorders.
MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. R. (1986) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-843x.95.1.15 · Cited by 2,553
Cognition and Depression: Current Status and Future Directions
Gotlib, I. H., & Joormann, J. (2010) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131305 · Cited by 2,420
The emotional Stroop task and psychopathology
Williams, J. M. G., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.1.3 · Cited by 2,420
The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101 · Cited by 2,309 · cited 4×
“Friedman, 2012; Miyake et al., 2000) 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).”
BackgroundInfluentialInhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex: one decade on
Aron, A. R., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2014) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.003 · Cited by 2,166
How brains beware: neural mechanisms of emotional attention
Vuilleumier, P. (2005) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.011 · Cited by 2,162
Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers.
Ratcliff, R. (1993) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510 · Cited by 2,142
Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load
Lavie, N. (2005) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004 · Cited by 2,102
Cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders
Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2005) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143916 · Cited by 2,100
The Neurocircuitry of Fear, Stress, and Anxiety Disorders
Shin, L. M., & Liberzon, I. (2010) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2009.83 · Cited by 2,083 · cited 1×
“…neuroimaging evidence indicating that anxiety disorders are associated with dysfunction in a network of subcortical and cortical structures (fear circuit), which includes the amygdala and prefrontal cortex (e.g., Monk et al., 2008; see reviews by Taylor & Whalen, 2015; Shin & Liberzon, 2010).”
BackgroundNigg, J. T. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.220 · Cited by 1,941 · cited 4×
“, assessed on the flanker task); and resistance to interference from irrelevant intrusive memories, which is also referred to as cognitive inhibition (Diamond, 2013; Nigg, 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialA dual-networks architecture of top-down control
Dosenbach, N. U. F., Fair, D. A., Cohen, A. L., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2008) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.001 · Cited by 1,931
Cognitive Reappraisal of Emotion: A Meta-Analysis of Human Neuroimaging Studies
Buhle, J. T., Silvers, J. A., Wager, T. D., Lopez, R., Onyemekwu, C., Kober, H., Weber, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2014) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bht154 · Cited by 1,896 · cited 3×
“…et al., 2014; see Eimer, 2014 for a review of these methods), and fMRI and MEG to examine activity of brain networks involved in stimulus evaluation, attention, and cognitive control (e.g., Buhle et al., 2014; Etkin & Wager, 2007; Maratos et al., 2009; Monk et al., 2008; Pessoa & Adolphs, 2010).”
BackgroundMethodCognitive Psychology and Emotional Disorders
Williams, J. M. G. (1988) · UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) · Cited by 1,871
The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: mental programs for intelligent behaviour
Duncan, J. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.004 · Cited by 1,846
Pessoa, L., & Adolphs, R. (2010) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2920 · Cited by 1,794
Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An integrative review
Cisler, J. M., & Koster, E. H. W. (2010) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.003 · Cited by 1,753
Anxiety-related attentional biases and their regulation by attentional control.
Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (2002) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.111.2.225 · Cited by 1,729
Niendam, T. A., Laird, A. R., Ray, K. L., Dean, Y. M., Glahn, D. C., & Carter, C. S. (2012) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-011-0083-5 · Cited by 1,700 · cited 1×
“It thereby plays a key role in supporting goal-directed thought and action (for meta-analytic neuroimaging evidence of a common cognitive control network, see Niendam et al., 2012).”
BackgroundSnyder, H. R. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0028727 · Cited by 1,667
Effects of Attention and Emotion on Face Processing in the Human Brain
Vuilleumier, P., Armony, J. L., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2001) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00328-2 · Cited by 1,664
A cognitive-motivational analysis of anxiety.
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (1998) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(98)00063-1 · Cited by 1,642
Self-citationRethinking the Emotional Brain
LeDoux, J. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.004 · Cited by 1,594 · cited 1×
“This fear circuit is involved in evaluation and detection of threat cues, eliciting and regulating emotional responses, and fear learning and extinction (LeDoux, 2012).”
BackgroundThe neural bases of momentary lapses in attention
Weissman, D. H., Roberts, K. C., Visscher, K. M., & Woldorff, M. G. (2006) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1727 · Cited by 1,566
Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.
Moors, A., & Houwer, J. D. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297 · Cited by 1,535
Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety?
Fox, E., Russo, R., Bowles, R., & Dutton, K. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.681 · Cited by 1,469
Attentional bias in addictive behaviors: A review of its development, causes, and consequences
FIELD, M., & COX, W. (2008) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.03.030 · Cited by 1,376
The face in the crowd revisited: A threat advantage with schematic stimuli.
Öhman, A., Lundqvist, D., & Esteves, F. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.381 · Cited by 1,366
MacLeod, C., Rutherford, E., Campbell, L., Ebsworthy, G., & Holker, L. (2002) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.111.1.107 · Cited by 1,334 · cited 5×
“Verbal instructions to direct attention away from threat are usually not included in ABM-threat-avoidance training (MacLeod& Clarke, 2015; MacLeod et al., 2002), which seeks to induce automatic threat avoidance primarily by habit change via repeated behavioural practice, rather than by engaging…”
BackgroundInfluentialPaulus, M. P., & Stein, M. B. (2006) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.03.042 · Cited by 1,325
An information processing model of anxiety: Automatic and strategic processes
Beck, A. T., & Clark, D. A. (1997) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(96)00069-1 · Cited by 1,317
How do emotion and motivation direct executive control?
Pessoa, L. (2009) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.006 · Cited by 1,286
(1994) · Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) · Cited by 1,205
(1992) · Cited by 1,154
Cognitive Psychology and Emotional Disorders
Wilhelm, S. A. (1998) · Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · Cited by 1,101
Eye tracking of attention in the affective disorders: a meta-analytic review and synthesis
Armstrong, T., & Olatunji, B. O. (2012) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.004 · Cited by 1,049 · cited 6×
“This model describes cognitive mechanisms underlying AB towards threat (identified in the metaanalysis), rather than those underlying anxiety-related threat avoidance, which is sometimes found in empirical studies (e.g., reviews by Armstrong & Olatunji, 2012; Cisler & Koster, 2010).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialBrain states: top-down influences in sensory processing.
Gilbert, C., & Sigman, M. (2007) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2007.05.019 · Cited by 1,008
Selective processing of threat cues in anxiety states
Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1985) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(85)90104-4 · Cited by 1,001
The neurobiology and control of anxious states
Millan, M. J. (2003) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0301-0082(03)00087-x · Cited by 978
Neurocognitive mechanisms of anxiety: An integrative account
Bishop, S. J. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.05.008 · Cited by 976
Neural network of cognitive emotion regulation—an ALE meta-analysis and MACM analysis
Kohn, N., Eickhoff, S. B., Scheller, M., Laird, A. R., Fox, P. T., & Habel, U. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.001 · Cited by 956
Snyder, H. R., Miyake, A., & Hankin, B. L. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00328 · Cited by 946 · cited 2×
“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).”
BackgroundResultSergerie, K., Chochol, C., & Armony, J. L. (2008) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.12.002 · Cited by 917
Phan, K. L., Fitzgerald, D. A., Nathan, P. J., Moore, G. J., Uhde, T. W., & Tancer, M. E. (2005) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.10.030 · Cited by 892
A meta-analysis of the effect of cognitive bias modification on anxiety and depression
Hallion, L. S., & Ruscio, A. M. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0024355 · Cited by 891
Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders
Brewin, C. (1989) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(89)90110-1 · Cited by 880
Hakamata, Y., Lissek, S., Bar-Haim, Y., Britton, J. C., Fox, N. A., Leibenluft, E., Ernst, M., & Pine, D. S. (2010) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.021 · Cited by 869
Reactive and effortful processes in the organization of temperament
Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1997) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579497001375 · Cited by 858
Kim, M. J., Loucks, R. A., Palmer, A. L., Brown, A. C., Solomon, K. M., Marchante, A. N., & Whalen, P. J. (2011) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.04.025 · Cited by 838
New Perspectives in Attentional Control Theory
Eysenck, M. W., & Derakshan, N. (2011) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.019 · Cited by 826 · cited 1×
“Several studies indicate that anxiety is associated with impaired inhibitory control, including poor inhibition of distractors and prepotent responses on flanker and antisaccade tasks (Berggren & Derakshan, 2013; Eysenck & Derakshan, 2011; Mogg et al., 2015).”
BackgroundAnxiety and the Allocation of Attention to Threat
MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1988) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/14640748808402292 · Cited by 817
A cognitive model of selective processing in anxiety
Mathews, A., & Mackintosh, B. (1998) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1023/a:1018738019346 · Cited by 756
Price, J. N. (1986) · Journal of Biosocial Science · doi:10.1017/s0021932000016369 · Cited by 715
Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Verschuere, B., & De Houwer, J. (2004) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.001 · Cited by 709
The State--Trait Anxiety Inventory, Trait version: structure and content re-examined
Bieling, P. J., Antony, M. M., & Swinson, R. P. (1998) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(98)00023-0 · Cited by 690
Brain mechanisms for emotional influences on perception and attention: What is magic and what is not
Pourtois, G., Schettino, A., & Vuilleumier, P. (2013) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.02.007 · Cited by 687
Monk, C. S., Telzer, E. H., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Mai, X., Louro, H. M. C., Chen, G., McClure-Tone, E. B., Ernst, M., & Pine, D. S. (2008) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.65.5.568 · Cited by 682 · cited 5×
“, 2014; see Eimer, 2014 for a review of these methods), and fMRI and MEG to examine activity of brain networks involved in stimulus evaluation, attention, and cognitive control (e.g., Buhle et al., 2014; Etkin & Wager, 2007; Maratos et al., 2009; Monk et al., 2008; Pessoa & Adolphs, 2010).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationAttention, distraction, and cognitive control under load
Lavie, N. (2010) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721410370295 · Cited by 673
Cognitive Bias Modification Approaches to Anxiety
MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (2012) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143052 · Cited by 664
Induced processing biases have causal effects on anxiety
Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2002) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930143000518 · Cited by 660
A selective review of selective attention research from the past century
Driver, J. (2001) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712601162103 · Cited by 658
The Neural Bases of Distraction and Reappraisal
McRae, K., Hughes, B., Chopra, S., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Gross, J. J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21243 · Cited by 642
"Unconscious anxiety": Phobic responses to masked stimuli.
Öhman, A., & Soares, J. J. F. (1994) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-843x.103.2.231 · Cited by 627
"Unconscious anxiety": Phobic responses to masked stimuli.
Öhman, A., & Soares, J. J. F. (1994) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.103.2.231 · Cited by 627
Bridging emotion theory and neurobiology through dynamic systems modeling
Lewis, M. D. (2005) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0500004x · Cited by 618
How to Regulate Emotion? Neural Networks for Reappraisal and Distraction
Kanske, P., Heissler, J., Schönfelder, S., Bongers, A., & Wessa, M. (2011) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq216 · Cited by 589
Selective Attention to Angry Faces in Clinical Social Phobia.
Mogg, K., Philippot, P., & Bradley, B. P. (2004) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.113.1.160 · Cited by 582
Self-citationFunctional network dysfunction in anxiety and anxiety disorders
Sylvester, C. M., Corbetta, M., Raichle, M. E., Rodebaugh, T. L., Schlaggar, B. L., Sheline, Y. I., Zorumski, C. F., & Lenze, E. J. (2012) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2012.04.012 · Cited by 579
The Unconscious Will: How the Pursuit of Goals Operates Outside of Conscious Awareness
Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1188595 · Cited by 573
Attentional bias in generalized anxiety disorder versus depressive disorder.
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2005) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-005-1646-y · Cited by 565
Self-citationA rational look at the emotional Stroop phenomenon: a generic slowdown, not a Stroop effect
Algom, D., Chajut, E., & Lev, S. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.323 · Cited by 565
Castellanos, E. H., Charboneau, E., Dietrich, M. S., Park, S., Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., & Cowan, R. L. (2009) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/ijo.2009.138 · Cited by 564
Self-citationAttentional bias in anxiety and depression: The role of awareness
Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., & Williams, R. (1995) · British Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1995.tb01434.x · Cited by 559
Self-citationEfficacy of treatments for anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis
Bandelow, B., Reitt, M., Röver, C., Michaelis, S., Görlich, Y., & Wedekind, D. (2015) · International Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1097/yic.0000000000000078 · Cited by 555
Efficacy of cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and depression: Meta-analysis
Cristea, I. A., Kok, R. N., & Cuijpers, P. (2015) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.114.146761 · Cited by 553
A Meta-analysis of Executive Components of Working Memory
Nee, D. E., Brown, J. W., Askren, M. K., Berman, M. G., Demiralp, E., Krawitz, A., & Jonides, J. (2013) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs007 · Cited by 544
Attention modification program in individuals with generalized anxiety disorder
Amir, N., Beard, C., Burns, M., & Bomyea, J. (2009) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0012589 · Cited by 539
Anxiety and Cognition: A Unified Theory
Eysenck, M. W. (2014) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 531
Mogg, K., Millar, N., & Bradley, B. (2000) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-843x.109.4.695 · Cited by 515
Self-citationMogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Miles, F. J., & Dixon, R. (2004) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930341000158 · Cited by 500
Self-citationSubliminal processing of emotional information in anxiety and depression.
Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Williams, R. M., & Mathews, A. (1993) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-843x.102.2.304 · Cited by 498
Self-citationSubliminal processing of emotional information in anxiety and depression.
Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Williams, R., & Mathews, A. (1993) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.102.2.304 · Cited by 497
Self-citationAnxiety Disorders and Phobias: A Cognitive Perspective
Beitman, B. D. (1986) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.143.4.542 · Cited by 491
A review of current evidence for the causal impact of attentional bias on fear and anxiety
Van Bockstaele, B., Verschuere, B., Tibboel, H., De Houwer, J., Crombez, G., & Koster, E. H. W. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0034834 · Cited by 485
Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety Disorders: A Review of Meta-Analytic Findings
Olatunji, B. O., Cisler, J. M., & Deacon, B. J. (2010) · Psychiatric Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.psc.2010.04.002 · Cited by 483
Mogg, K., Millar, N., & Bradley, B. P. (2000) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.109.4.695 · Cited by 478
Handbook of Implicit Cognition and Addiction
Wiers, R., & Stacy, A. (2006) · doi:10.4135/9781412976237 · Cited by 474
Time course of attentional bias for threat information in non-clinical anxiety.
Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., De Bono, J., & Painter, M. (1997) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(96)00109-x · Cited by 464
Self-citationModels and mechanisms of anxiety: evidence from startle studies
Grillon, C. (2008) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-007-1019-1 · Cited by 456
Attentional Bias for Threatening Facial Expressions in Anxiety: Manipulation of Stimulus Duration
Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., Falla, S. J., & Hamilton, L. R. (1998) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/026999398379411 · Cited by 455
Self-citationAttentional bias for emotional faces in generalized anxiety disorder
Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., White, J., Groom, C. J., & Bono, J. D. (1999) · British Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466599162845 · Cited by 448
Self-citationAttentional biases for negative information in induced and naturally occurring dysphoria
Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., & Lee, S. C. (1997) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(97)00053-3 · Cited by 448
Self-citationA psychobiological approach to the development of temperament.
Rothbart, M. K., Derryberry, D., & Posner, M. I. (1994) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/10149-003 · Cited by 445
Pine, D. S., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Montgomery, L. A., Monk, C. S., McClure, E. B., Guyer, A. E., Ernst, M., Charney, D. S., & Kaufman, J. (2005) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.291 · Cited by 438
Self-citationSotres-Bayon, F., Cain, C. K., & LeDoux, J. E. (2006) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.10.012 · Cited by 433
Covert and overt orienting of attention to emotional faces in anxiety
Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., & Millar, N. (2000) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930050156636 · Cited by 427
Self-citationAnxiety: The cognitive perspective
Tallis, F. (1993) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90078-h · Cited by 414
Attentional control deficits in trait anxiety: Why you see them and why you don't
Berggren, N., & Derakshan, N. (2013) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.03.007 · Cited by 403
Functional Characterization of the Cingulo-Opercular Network in the Maintenance of Tonic Alertness
Sadaghiani, S., & D’Esposito, M. (2014) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhu072 · Cited by 398
Posner, M. I., & Fan, J. (2008) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511541681.005 · Cited by 397
Vuilleumier, P., & Driver, J. (2007) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2092 · Cited by 397
Social anxiety and attention away from emotional faces
Mansell, W., Clark, D. M., Ehlers, A., & Chen, Y.-P. (1999) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/026999399379032 · Cited by 397
Emotion and cognition interactions in PTSD: a review of neurocognitive and neuroimaging studies
Hayes, J. P., VanElzakker, M. B., & Shin, L. M. (2012) · Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnint.2012.00089 · Cited by 393
Clinical Efficacy of Attentional Bias Modification Procedures: An Updated Meta-Analysis
Mogoaşe, C., David, D. O., & Koster, E. H. W. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1002/jclp.22081 · Cited by 386
Öhman, A., & Soares, J. J. F. (1993) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-843x.102.1.121 · Cited by 383
Okon-Singer, H., Hendler, T., Pessoa, L., & Shackman, A. J. (2015) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00058 · Cited by 371
The Oxford Handbook of Attention
(2014) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675111.001.0001 · Cited by 352
Memory bias in clinical anxiety
Mogg, K., Mathews, A., & Weinman, J. (1987) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.96.2.94 · Cited by 351
Self-citationDandeneau, S. D., Baldwin, M. W., Baccus, J. R., Sakellaropoulo, M., & Pruessner, J. C. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.651 · Cited by 341
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (1999) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(98)00158-2 · Cited by 336
Self-citationOrienting and maintenance of gaze to facial expressions in social anxiety
Garner, M., Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2006) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.115.4.760 · Cited by 334
Self-citationDalgleish, T., Taghavi, R., Neshat-Doost, H., Moradi, A., Canterbury, R., & Yule, W. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3201_02 · Cited by 328
The attentional bias modification approach to anxiety intervention
MacLeod, C., & Clarke, P. J. F. (2015) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702614560749 · Cited by 315
Attention bias modification for social anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Heeren, A., Mogoașe, C., Philippot, P., & McNally, R. J. (2015) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.001 · Cited by 312
Processing emotional facial expressions: The role of anxiety and awareness
FOX, E. (2002) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/cabn.2.1.52 · Cited by 308
Phenomenological characteristics of attentional biases towards threat: A critical review
Cisler, J. M., Bacon, A. K., & Williams, N. L. (2009) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-007-9161-y · Cited by 306
Temperament, anxiety, and the processing of threat-relevant stimuli
Lonigan, C. J., Vasey, M. W., Phillips, B. M., & Hazen, R. A. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3301_2 · Cited by 303
Attention and emotion: a clinical perspective
Eysenck, M. W. (1995) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(95)90043-8 · Cited by 301
Effects of stress and anxiety on the processing of threat stimuli.
Mogg, K., Mathews, A., Bird, C., & Macgregor-Morris, R. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1230 · Cited by 290
Self-citationEffects of stress and anxiety on the processing of threat stimuli
Mogg, K., Mathews, A., Bird, C., & Macgregor-Morris, R. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1230 · Cited by 289
Self-citationResearch Review: A neuroscience framework for pediatric anxiety disorders
Pine, D. S. (2007) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01751.x · Cited by 288
Negative Affectivity, Effortful Control, and Attention to Threat-Relevant Stimuli
Lonigan, C. J., & Vasey, M. W. (2008) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9284-y · Cited by 279
Time-course of attention for threatening pictures in high and low trait anxiety
Koster, E. H. W., Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., & Van Damme, S. (2005) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2004.08.004 · Cited by 274
Different Forms of Self-Control Share a Neurocognitive Substrate
Tabibnia, G., Monterosso, J. R., Baicy, K., Aron, A. R., Poldrack, R. A., Chakrapani, S., Lee, B., & London, E. D. (2011) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2859-10.2011 · Cited by 271
Kappenman, E. S., Farrens, J. L., Luck, S. J., & Hajcak, G. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01368 · Cited by 267
Amygdala Automaticity in Emotional Processing
DOLAN, R. J., & VUILLEUMIER, P. (2003) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07093.x · Cited by 263
Mogg, K., Holmes, A., Garner, M. J., & Bradley, B. P. (2008) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2008.02.011 · Cited by 262
Self-citationAttentional bias towards threatening stimuli in children with anxiety: A meta-analysis
Dudeney, J., Sharpe, L., & Hunt, C. (2015) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.007 · Cited by 247
Vytal, K., Cornwell, B., Arkin, N., & Grillon, C. (2012) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01358.x · Cited by 246
Theories and measurement of visual attentional processing in anxiety
Weierich, M. R., Treat, T. A., & Hollingworth, A. (2008) · Cognition and Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930701597601 · Cited by 245
Influencing brain networks: implications for education
POSNER, M., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.01.007 · Cited by 241
Temporal dynamics of attentional bias
Zvielli, A., Bernstein, A., & Koster, E. H. W. (2015) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702614551572 · Cited by 237
Lateral prefrontal cortex mediates the cognitive modification of attentional bias
Browning, M., Holmes, E. A., Murphy, S. E., Goodwin, G. M., & Harmer, C. J. (2010) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.10.031 · Cited by 236
Handbook of Implicit Cognition and Addiction
Bühringer, G. (2007) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01865.x · Cited by 235
Menne-Lothmann, C., Viechtbauer, W., Höhn, P., Kasanova, Z., Haller, S. P., Drukker, M., van Os, J., Wichers, M., & Lau, J. Y. F. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100925 · Cited by 235
Selective attention to threat: A test of two cognitive models of anxiety
Mogg, K., McNamara, J., Powys, M., Rawlinson, H., Seiffer, A., & Bradley, B. P. (2000) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/026999300378888 · Cited by 232
Self-citationSpider fearful individuals attend to threat, then quickly avoid it: Evidence from eye movements.
Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2006) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.115.2.231 · Cited by 231
Wilson, E., & MacLeod, C. (2003) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.112.2.212 · Cited by 230
The emotional stroop interference effect in anxiety: attentional bias or cognitive avoidance?
de Ruiter, C., & BROSSCHOT, J. F. (1994) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)90128-7 · Cited by 230
Attention bias modification treatment for pediatric anxiety disorders: A randomized controlled trial
Eldar, S., Apter, A., Lotan, D., Edgar, K. P., Naim, R., Fox, N. A., Pine, D. S., & Bar-Haim, Y. (2012) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11060886 · Cited by 220
Bardeen, J. R., & Orcutt, H. K. (2011) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.06.009 · Cited by 218
Carlbring, P., Apelstrand, M., Sehlin, H., Amir, N., Rousseau, A., Hofmann, S. G., & Andersson, G. (2012) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/1471-244x-12-66 · Cited by 215
Mogg, K., Bradley, B., Dixon, C., Fisher, S., Twelftree, H., & McWilliams, A. (2000) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(99)00157-9 · Cited by 213
Self-citationCognitive abnormalities in post-traumatic stress disorder
McNally, R. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.007 · Cited by 208
Frontoparietal and Cingulo-opercular Networks Play Dissociable Roles in Control of Working Memory
Wallis, G., Stokes, M. G., Cousijn, H., Woolrich, M. W., & Nobre, A. C. (2015) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00838 · Cited by 204
Attentional Bias to Threat: Roles of Trait Anxiety, Stressful Events, and Awareness
Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., & Hallowell, N. (1994) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/14640749408401099 · Cited by 201
Self-citationDennis, T. A., & O’Toole, L. J. (2014) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702614522228 · Cited by 197
Life-threatening danger and suppression of attention bias to threat
Bar-Haim, Y., Holoshitz, Y., Eldar, S., Frenkel, T. I., Muller, D., Charney, D. S., Pine, D. S., Fox, N. A., & Wald, I. (2010) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09070956 · Cited by 193
Biases in visual orienting to negative and positive scenes in dysphoria: an eye movement study.
Caseras, X., Garner, M., Bradley, B. P., & Mogg, K. (2007) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.116.3.491 · Cited by 189
Self-citationTime course of attentional bias for fear-relevant pictures in spider-fearful individuals
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2006) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2006.05.003 · Cited by 186
Self-citationBadura-Brack, A. S., Naim, R., Ryan, T. J., Levy, O., Abend, R., Khanna, M. M., McDermott, T. J., Pine, D. S., & Bar-Haim, Y. (2015) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.14121578 · Cited by 185
Allocation of visual attention and anxiety
Fox, E. (1993) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699939308409185 · Cited by 180
Training anxious children to disengage attention from threat: a randomized controlled trial
Bar‐Haim, Y., Morag, I., & Glickman, S. (2011) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02368.x · Cited by 173
Hermans, D., Vansteenwegen, D., & Eelen, P. (1999) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/026999399379249 · Cited by 173
Suppression of the emotional Stroop effect by increased anxiety in patients with social phobia
Amir, N., McNally, R. J., Riemann, B. C., Burns, J. L., Lorenz, M., & Mullen, J. T. (1996) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(96)00054-x · Cited by 171
Dynamic modulation of emotional processing
Okon‐Singer, H., Lichtenstein-Vidne, L., & Cohen, N. (2012) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.05.010 · Cited by 169
Hypervigilance–avoidance pattern in spider phobia
Pflugshaupt, T., Mosimann, U. P., von Wartburg, R., Schmitt, W. J., Nyffeler, T., & Müri, R. M. (2004) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2003.12.002 · Cited by 166
Emotional Stroop Performance for Masked Angry Faces: It's BAS, Not BIS.
Putman, P., Hermans, E. J., & van Honk, J. (2004) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.4.3.305 · Cited by 165
Ólafsson, R. P., Smári, J., Guðmundsdóttir, F., Ólafsdóttir, G., Harðardóttir, H. L., & Einarsson, S. M. (2011) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.03.013 · Cited by 160
Suppression of emotional stroop effects by fear-arousal
Mathews, A., & Sebastian, S. B. (1993) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699939308409203 · Cited by 160
Towards a new model of attentional biases in the development, maintenance, and management of pain
Todd, J., Sharpe, L., Johnson, A., Nicholson Perry, K., Colagiuri, B., & Dear, B. F. (2015) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000214 · Cited by 156
Attentional selectivity for emotional faces: Evidence from human electrophysiology
Holmes, A., Bradley, B. P., Nielsen, M. K., & Mogg, K. (2008) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00750.x · Cited by 152
Self-citationIordan, A. D., Dolcos, S., & Dolcos, F. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00200 · Cited by 148
Linking Executive Control and Emotional Response
Cohen, N., Mor, N., & Henik, A. (2014) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702614530114 · Cited by 146
Predictors of response to an attention modification program in generalized social phobia.
Amir, N., Taylor, C. T., & Donohue, M. (2011) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0023808 · Cited by 137
Attention training towards positive stimuli in clinically anxious children
Waters, A. M., Pittaway, M., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., & Pine, D. S. (2013) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2012.09.004 · Cited by 135 · cited 12×
“Thus, additional AB assessment measures which use tasks and stimuli different to those used in training would be helpful (e.g., visual-probe or modified Stroop tasks to assess effects of ABM-positive-search training on AB, as in Dandeneau et al., 2007; Waters et al., 2013, 2015).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationCristea, I. A., Mogoaşe, C., David, D., & Cuijpers, P. J. (2015) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12383 · Cited by 135
Heeren, A., Mogoaşe, C., McNally, R. J., Schmitz, A., & Philippot, P. (2015) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.10.007 · Cited by 134
Failure to filter: Anxious individuals show inefficient gating of threat from working memory
Stout, D. M., Shackman, A. J., & Larson, C. L. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00058 · Cited by 133
Reinholdt‐Dunne, M. L., Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2009) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2009.01.012 · Cited by 132
Self-citationAutomaticity in anxiety disorders and major depressive disorder
Teachman, B. A., Joormann, J., Steinman, S. A., & Gotlib, I. H. (2012) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.06.004 · Cited by 130 · cited 2×
“Thus, the model cannot account for anxiety-related biases in automatic processing of threat (for evidence of such biases, see reviews by Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Teachman et al., 2012).”
ResultTime course of attentional bias to emotional scenes in anxiety: Gaze direction and duration
Calvo, M. G., & Avero, P. (2005) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930441000157 · Cited by 130
Threat bias in attention orienting: Evidence of specificity in a large community-based study
Salum, G. A., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Gadelha, A., Pan, P., Tamanaha, A. C., Moriyama, T., Graeff-Martins, A. S., Jarros, R. B., Polanczyk, G., et al. (2013) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291712001651 · Cited by 126
Self-citationWaters, A. M., Bradley, B. P., & Mogg, K. (2014) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291713000779 · Cited by 126
Self-citationReinholdt-Dunne, M. L., Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2013) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2012.715081 · Cited by 119
Self-citationVisual search attentional bias modification reduced social phobia in adolescents
De Voogd, E. L., Wiers, R. W., Prins, P. J. M., & Salemink, E. (2014) · Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2013.11.006 · Cited by 111 · cited 4×
“Anxiolytic effects of ABM-positive-search training have been found in clinic/laboratory (De Voogd et al., 2014; Waters et al., 2013), work (Dandeneau et al., 2007) and home settings (Waters et al., 2015, 2016).”
BackgroundInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Öhman, 1994, The psychophysiology of emotion: Evolutionary and nonconscious origins, Vol. 1, 197
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Attentional bias for threat: Crisis or opportunity?
McNally, R. J. (2018) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2018.05.005 · Cited by 272
Sleep in the anxiety-related disorders: A meta-analysis of subjective and objective research
Cox, R. C., & Olatunji, B. O. (2020) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2020.101282 · Cited by 245
Mogg, K., Waters, A. M., & Bradley, B. P. (2017) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702617696359 · Cited by 215
Self-citationAnxiety and Threat-Related Attention: Cognitive-Motivational Framework and Treatment
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.001 · Cited by 210
Self-citationModeling Trait Anxiety: From Computational Processes to Personality
Raymond, J. G., Steele, J. D., & Seriès, P. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00001 · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Southampton (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Mogg, Karin
- Venue
- Behaviour Research and Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-12
- Volume
- 87
- Pages
- 76-108
- ISSN
- 0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
