Cited by 64Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Attentional bias to threat: A perceptual accuracy approach.

Van Damme, Stefaan, Crombez, Geert, Notebaert, Lies·2008·Emotion

Abstract

To investigate attentional bias to threatening information, the authors propose a new version of the spatial cueing paradigm in which the focus is on perceptual accuracy instead of response speed. In two experiments, healthy volunteers made unspeeded discriminations between three visual targets presented left or right. Each target was preceded by a visual cue (colored rectangle) at either the same (valid) or opposite (invalid) location. By means of differential classical conditioning with aversive white noise, a threat cue and a control cue were created. Analyses of error rates showed that cueing effects (lower proportion of errors in valid trials relative to invalid trials) were more pronounced in threat trials than in neutral trials. This threat-related bias was particularly because of threat cues reducing accuracy in invalid trials, indicating difficulty disengaging attention from threatening information. Engagement of attention was not affected by threat, as threat cues did not facilitate the processing of targets in valid trials. The findings are discussed in light of the strengths and limitations of spatial cueing tasks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0014149

Cites

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?

  • After association with an aversive event, initially neutral cues caused both facilitated attentional engagement and delayed disengagement.

    “Other studies showed that after the association with an aversive event, initially neutral cues caused both facilitated attentional engagement (Koster, Crombez, van Damme, Verschuere, & de Houwer, 2004) and delayed disengagement (Preciado et al., 2017; van Damme, Crombez, & Notebaert, 2008).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as van Damme, Crombez, & Notebaert, 2008

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 43 · Cited by 64

Authors
Van Damme, S., Crombez, G., & Notebaert, L.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Venue
Emotion
Published
2008
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
820-827
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
OpenAlex
W2054988823
Cited by
64
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 11
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
attentional bias to threat, threats, spatial cueing, perceptual accuracy, attentional disengagement, threat cues, attentional engagement, error rate
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Affect, Animals, Anxiety, Attention, Conditioning, Classical, Cues, Female, Humans, Male, Visual Perception

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