Cited by 27Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchMemory Processes and InfluencesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Fewer intrusions after an attentional bias modification training for perceptual reminders of analogue trauma

Open access
Verwoerd, Johan, Wessel, Ineke, de Jong, Peter J.·2012·Cognition & Emotion

Abstract

The present experimental analogue study used computerised attention training to investigate the role of attention bias in the prediction of intrusive memories. After exposure to a trauma film, participants in a training group (n=22) were presented with a variant of the exogenic cueing task (ECT) in which visual film reminders (i.e., stills from the trauma film) were always presented during invalid and neutral control stimuli always during valid trials. The purpose of this cue-location contingency was reinforcing the direction of attention away from film reminders. Control participants (n=23) performed a similar training without such a contingency. Post-training processing bias was assessed with a single target Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) task, in which trauma-film reminders served as task-irrelevant distracters appearing shortly before a neutral target. The frequency of film-related intrusions was recorded in a take-home diary and at a follow-up session three days after film viewing. Participants who underwent attention training reported fewer film-related intrusions and showed less interference by visual film distracters than controls. Implications for research on attention bias after real-life trauma are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02699931.2011.563521

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verwoerd, J., Wessel, I., & de Jong, P. J.
Affiliations
University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Verwoerd, Johan
Venue
Cognition & Emotion
Published
2012-01
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
153-165
ISSN
  • 0269-9931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0600
OpenAlex
W1988943592
Cited by
27
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Cognition & Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
attentional bias modification, intrusive memories, trauma, attentional bias, rapid serial visual presentation, visual reminders, post-traumatic stress, memory intrusion, attention training
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Cues, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Photic Stimulation, Teaching, Visual Perception, Wounds and Injuries

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