CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMemory Processes and Influences

Performance in a blocked versus randomized emotional Stroop task in an aged, early traumatized group with and without posttraumatic stress symptoms.

Wittekind, Charlotte E., Muhtz, Christoph, Moritz, Steffen, Jelinek, Lena·2017·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
DOI 10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.06.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background and objectives Attentional biases (AB) for trauma-related stimuli have been examined in many studies assessing different trauma samples. In emotional Stroop tasks (EST), blocked and single-trial formats are used almost interchangeably in clinical research. There is reason to believe that different designs yield different results and assess different processes, which, however, has been hardly examined in studies. Furthermore, there is a dearth of information about AB in older trauma survivors with posttraumatic stress symptoms.Methods Older adults with (n = 20) and without PTSD symptoms (n = 26) as well as non-traumatized controls (n = 21) completed an EST, in which words were presented both blocked and randomized.Results Analyses revealed that individuals with PTSD symptoms showed AB for trauma- and depression-related words; however, mode of administration did not significantly influence reaction times.Limitations The emotional Stroop task cannot disentangle the underlying cognitive mechanism (i.e., facilitation, interference, avoidance).Conclusions PTSD symptoms in older trauma survivors are associated with AB. Overall, participants with PTSD symptoms did not show greater impairment of cognitive control in comparison to both control groups. Results also illustrate that methodological differences between task versions need to be considered more thoroughly.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.06.003

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wittekind, C. E., Muhtz, C., Moritz, S., & Jelinek, L.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
  • Schön Klinik Hamburg Eilbek (DE)
Corresponding author
Wittekind, Charlotte E.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
54
Pages
35-43
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.06.003
OpenAlex
W2412021227
Cited by
8
References
64
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Universität Hamburg
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 › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
emotional Stroop task, attentional bias, posttraumatic stress symptoms, early trauma, cognitive control, reaction time
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Emotions, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reaction Time, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Cohort Studies, Stroop Test

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