Cited by 26Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFace Recognition and Perception

Limited generalisation of changes in attentional bias following attentional bias modification with the visual probe task

Open access
Van Bockstaele, Bram, Salemink, Elske, Bögels, Susan M., Wiers, Reinout W.·2017·Cognition and Emotion

Abstract

Although attentional bias modification (ABM) can change anxiety, recent studies failed to replicate such effects, possibly because the visual probe ABM failed to induce changes in attentional bias (AB). We investigated whether visual probe ABM generalised to different measures of AB besides the visual probe task (VPT), and thus whether ABM genuinely changes attentional processing. We trained participants (N = 60) to either attend towards or away from angry facial expressions, and we examined training effects on the dot probe task, the exogenous cueing task, and the visual search task. We found a small change in AB in the VPT, but this effect did not transfer to the exogenous cueing task or the visual search task. Our study shows that ABM does not necessarily lead to generalised effects on AB. This finding can be explained by the poor psychometric properties of the AB measures.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02699931.2015.1092418

Cites

20 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van Bockstaele, B., Salemink, E., Bögels, S. M., & Wiers, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Cognition and Emotion
Published
2015-10-23
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
369-376
ISSN
  • 0269-9931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0600
OpenAlex
W1782572835
Cited by
26
References
20
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3
FWCI
5.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Cognition & Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (VENI 451-10-029,VICI 453-08-001)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
attentional bias modification, attentional bias, visual probe task, dot-probe task, exogenous cueing, visual search, angry facial expressions, anxiety
MeSH terms
Attentional Bias, Facial Expression, Female, Generalization, Psychological, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, 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