Attentional bias to threat: A perceptual accuracy approach.
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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