Cited by 61Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Attentional retraining procedures: Manipulating early or late components of attentional bias?

Koster, Ernst H. W., Baert, Saskia, Bockstaele, Maarten, De Raedt, Rudi·2010·Emotion

Abstract

According to cognitive models of anxiety disorders, attentional bias for threatening information is a vulnerability factor to the etiology and maintenance of anxiety. A recently developed methodology to reduce attentional bias has been found to reduce emotional reactivity and anxiety. The present study aimed at identifying the effects of this attentional bias reduction on early and later stages of threat processing. Undergraduates were allocated to an attentional bias reduction (n = 23) versus control condition (n = 25). It was found that attentional bias reduction influenced late but not early stages of threat processing. This finding is of theoretical importance in relation to studies on the causal role of attentional bias and emotional reactivity. Moreover, the present findings also bear relevance to the clinical application of attentional retraining procedures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0018424

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Koster et al. (2010) found that training attention away from threat did not affect vigilance for threat in the modified dot probe (100 ms SOA), but led to later avoidance of threat (1500 ms SOA), similar to spider phobia in the present meta-analysis.

    “Indeed, Koster et al., (2010) found that training attention away from threat did not affect vigilance for threat in the modified dot probe (100 ms SOA); however, it did lead to later avoidance of threat (1500 ms SOA), a bias similar to that observed in spider phobia in the present meta-analysis.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koster, E. H. W., Baert, S., Bockstaele, M., & De Raedt, R.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Venue
Emotion
Published
2010
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
230-236
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
OpenAlex
W1986292817
Cited by
61
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
10.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ghent University (BOF-GOA2006/001)
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
attentional bias, attention training, threat processing, emotional reactivity, anxiety disorders, cognitive models of anxiety
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Attention, Cognition, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychological Tests, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Young Adult

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