Cited by 9Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesStress Responses and Cortisol

Influence of acute stress on attentional bias toward threat: How a previous trauma exposure disrupts threat apprehension

Open access
Blekić, Wivine, Rossignol, Mandy, Wauthia, Erika, Felmingham, Kim L.·2021·International Journal of Psychophysiology

Abstract

While previous trauma exposure is known to be a risk factor for the development and maintenance of many psychological disorders, it remains unclear how it increases individual risk for prospective psychopathology in the aftermath of a new trauma exposure. The aim of this study was to investigate how a prior exposure to trauma affects attentional processing of threat before and after an acute stress task. Specifically, we assessed attentional biases to threat before and after a cold pressor task in 17 individuals who have been exposed to trauma (TE) compared to 18 individuals without trauma exposure (NTE). Behavioral results showed difficulties to disengage from threat in TE but not in the control group prior to stress induction, as well as a switch to an attentional bias toward threat after the cold pressor task in the TE group. For the ERPs, we highlighted (1) decreased N1 negativity in response to threatening stimuli after an acute stress in both groups, and (2) a parallel increase in P1 for such stimuli only in the TE group. Those results suggest a vulnerability presented by previously traumatized individuals when dealing with threats as well as an acute responsitity toward stress. Those results are interpreted in regards with the theorical models of stress and anxiety.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.09.009

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blekić, W., Rossignol, M., Wauthia, E., & Felmingham, K. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Mons (BE)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Blekić, Wivine
Venue
International Journal of Psychophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
170
Pages
20-29
ISSN
0167-8760 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3203451581
Cited by
9
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORBi UMONS (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • FRS-FNRS (F6/40/5)
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
acute stress, trauma exposure, cold pressor task, P1 component, event-related potentials, vulnerability to psychopathology
MeSH terms
Attentional Bias, Anxiety, Attention, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Prospective Studies

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.

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