The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 17 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias
Open accessAbstract
Biases of emotional attention are believed to be central to human (mal)adaptation and multiple forms of psychopathology. Yet fundamental questions remain regarding the nature and empirical study of attentional bias (AB). We thus aimed to (a) test a novel conceptualization and related operationalization of AB expression in time and (b) illuminate the nature of AB and specifically its temporal expression. We examined AB expression in time by means of a novel trial-level bias score (TL-BS) analysis of dot probe task data in two experiments—among spider phobics and healthy controls, and among smoking-deprived daily smokers. Findings revealed evidence of the dynamic expression of AB in time; furthermore, TL-BS parameters demonstrated unique associations with psychopathology and addiction beyond traditional bias score. The present research may help to bring the conceptualization and quantification of AB closer to the nature of the phenomenon and thereby advance basic and clinical knowledge.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper proposes a Trial-Level Bias Score (TL-BS) method for dot-probe data, arguing that attentional bias is expressed as dynamic, fluctuating bursts over time rather than as a stable trait-like signal. Across spider-phobia and smoking-deprivation experiments, TL-BS parameters predicted diagnostic status and smoking rate, often incrementally beyond traditional mean bias scores.
Key findings
- TL-BS data were not consistent with a static trait-like signal: attentional bias showed phasic bursts and fluctuating temporal variability toward and/or away from target stimuli, with peaks varying within and between participants.
- In Experiment 1, spider phobics had higher Fear of Spiders Questionnaire scores than controls, M(SD) = 91.39(20.62) vs. 21.87(22.21), t(62) = 12.59, p < .001, d = 3.2. TL-BS positive parameters and TL-BS variability significantly related to spider-phobic group status, with incremental Nagelkerke’s R² = .04 to .13 in the 500-ms block and .07 to .13 in the 200-ms block; traditional bias score generally did not explain unique variance beyond TL-BS parameters.
- In Experiment 2, among 45 daily smokers, traditional bias score showed very low split-half reliability (Spearman r = .06, n.s.), whereas TL-BS parameters showed higher reliability: Mean TL-BS POSITIVE r = .67, Mean TL-BS NEGATIVE r = .58, Peak TL-BS POSITIVE r = .44, Peak TL-BS NEGATIVE r = .31, TL-BS Variability r = .46.
- TL-BS toward-smoking parameters explained unique variance in daily smoking rate beyond traditional bias score, F(3,41) = 2.5, Δr² = .07, p = .04; traditional bias score did not explain unique variance beyond TL-BS parameters, sr² = .01, p = .25.
Methods
- Experiment 1: 41 spider-phobic participants and 25 healthy controls completed a visual dot-probe task with spider/butterfly stimuli in counterbalanced 200-ms and 500-ms blocks; each block had 60 experimental trials (20 neutral, 20 congruent, 20 incongruent). TL-BS was computed by subtracting temporally contiguous congruent and incongruent trial RT pairs within a 5-trial window, yielding parameters for Mean TL-BS POSITIVE/NEGATIVE, Peak TL-BS POSITIVE/NEGATIVE, and TL-BS Variability; logistic regressions tested diagnostic status.
- Experiment 2: 45 daily smokers completed an 18-hour biochemically verified smoking-deprivation procedure (CO < 6 PPM) and a dot-probe task with smoking-related pictures in one 500-ms block of 160 trials (80 neutral, 40 congruent, 40 incongruent). Analyses included split-half reliability, zero-order correlations, and hierarchical regression predicting daily smoking rate.
- Across both experiments, TL-BS parameters were compared with traditional mean bias scores, and “fake TL-BS” parameters computed from neutral trials were used as robustness checks.
Limitations
- The paper states that TL-BS was tested only in the modified dot-probe task and only for emotional attention; generalization to other paradigms and non-emotional attention remains untested.
- The paper states that validation analyses were cross-sectional, limiting causal or directional inference, and that split-half reliability could not be meaningfully computed in Experiment 1 due to insufficient trials.
- The paper states that TL-BS is only one of multiple possible computational approaches and calls for future large-scale psychometric work; evident from the text, the samples are modest and Experiment 2 used only a single 500-ms stimulus block, so robustness across durations and populations is not established.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
57 Own result · 29 Own interpretation · 11 Not checked yet · 8 Own method · 6 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Findings revealed evidence of the dynamic expression of AB in time; furthermore, TL-BS parameters demonstrated unique associations with psychopathology and addiction beyond traditional bias score.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As predicted, AB appears to be expressed in phasic bursts or peaks over time.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Traditional Computation of Attentional Bias.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Findings revealed evidence of the dynamic expression of AB in time; furthermore, TL-BS parameters demonstrated unique associations with psychopathology and addiction beyond traditional bias score.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, as predicted, greater degree of Variability in TL-BS was significantly related to spider phobia diagnostic status.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Traditional and Trial-Level Attentional Bias Parameters and Phobia Diagnostic Status.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, for the 200ms block, traditional BS was significantly related to spider phobic group status.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Traditional and Trial-Level Attentional Bias Parameters and Phobia Diagnostic Status.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and again, traditional BS did not explain unique variance above and beyond the TL-BS towards parameters.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Traditional and Trial-Level Attentional Bias Parameters and Phobia Diagnostic Status.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we found that both TL-BS Variability and traditional BS each explained unique incremental variance in spider phobic group status above and beyond the other (See Table 1).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Traditional and Trial-Level Attentional Bias Parameters and Phobia Diagnostic Status.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, though not predicted, peak levels of TL-BS away from spider stimuli discriminated between diagnostic groups.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Discussion Experiment 1
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, consistent with prediction, TL-BS data were not consistent with a static trait-like signal over time.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Discussion Experiment 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, we were able to derive initial candidate parameters reflecting the time-series trial-level AB expression over time including: degree of AB towards and/or away from target stimuli as well as degree of stability or temporal variability in the expression of AB towards and/or away over time.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Discussion Experiment 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- Probably not a substantial claim. 33
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the magnitude and direction of peaks vary within-and between-participants, as does the degree of temporal variability.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Traditional Computation of Attentional Bias.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, in the 500ms block, the Peak TL-BS POSITIVE did not account for unique variance beyond traditional mean BS; it was though incrementally significant in the 200ms block.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Discussion Experiment 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TL-BS demonstrated phasic bursts of differential attentional allocation over time; as well as evidence of fluctuating temporal variability ranging from AB towards and/or away from spider images.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Discussion Experiment 1
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From a total of 40 IT and 40 CT, M(SD) of computed BSs/participant = 70.1(3.9).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Trial-Level Bias Scores (TL-BS): Computation. See Study 1 Results for computation of TL-BS.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, the amplitude and direction of peaks vary within-and between-participants, as does the degree of temporal variability.”
- Also stated in: § Experiment 2 Discussion · plain
“Moreover, as in Experiment 1, the amplitude and direction of peaks vary within-and between-participants, as does the degree of temporal variability.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Discussion Experiment 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Experiment 2 Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the Positive TL-BS parameters (i.e., Peak, Mean) as well as traditional BS did not predict group status above and beyond neutral mean RT (OR < 1.1, n.s).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Traditional and Trial-Level Attentional Bias Parameters and Phobia Diagnostic Status.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants smoked M(SD) = 15.2 (5.1) cigarettes/day.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Participants
plainn = 45- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, traditional BS did not explain unique variance above and beyond the TL-BS parameters.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Traditional and Trial-Level Attentional Bias Parameters and Phobia Diagnostic Status.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sample traditional mean BS (mean ITmean CT RTs) M(SD) = 13.5(18.8)ms.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Traditional Computation of Attentional Bias. Sample traditional mean BS (mean ITmean CT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, Peak TL-BS POSITIVE did not.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Traditional and Trial-Level Attentional Bias Parameters and Phobia Diagnostic Status.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Finally, though mean RT on neutral trials distinguished between groups (see also Mogg et al., 2008), the”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Discussion Experiment 1
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mogg et al., 2008
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, as in Experiment 1, the TL-BS towards parameters explained unique variance in smoking rate above and beyond the effect of traditional mean BS, whereas traditional BS did not explain unique variance in smoking rate beyond the TL-BS towards parameter.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Experiment 2 Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of trials between paired IT-CT trials was M(SD) = 2.0 (1.15).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Trial-Level Bias Scores (TL-BS): Computation. See Study 1 Results for computation of TL-BS.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The M(SD) number of sequential trials with no calculation of TL-BS = 2.1(.10).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Trial-Level Bias Scores (TL-BS): Computation. See Study 1 Results for computation of TL-BS.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, TL-BS parameters that demonstrate the greatest association are the towards parameters -Mean TL-BS POSITIVE and Peak TL-BS POSITIVEand the away parameters -Mean TL-BS NEGATIVE and Peak TL-BS NEGATIVE , respectively.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Relations Between Traditional BS and Trial-Level AB Parameters.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TL-BS demonstrated phasic bursts of differential attentional allocation over time as well as evidence of fluctuating temporal variability ranging from AB towards to away from motivationally-relevant aversive and appetitive stimuli.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > General Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Traditional BS demonstrated very low levels of split-half reliability (r Spearman = .06,n.s.), whereas TL-BS parameters demonstrated overall higher levels of reliability [Mean TL-BS POSITIVE (r Spearman = .67,p < .01);Mean TL-BS NEGATIVE (r Spearman = .58,p < .01);Peak TL-BS POSITIVE ( r Spearman = .44,p < .01;Peak TL-BS NEGATIVE (r Spearman = .31,p < .05);TL-BS Variability (r Spearman = .46,p < .”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Split-Half Reliability of Traditional BS and Trial-Level AB Parameters.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that traditional BS demonstrated: (a) no association with TL-BS away parameters; (b) a small association with TL-BS Variability; and (c) moderate relations with TL-BS towards parameters.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Experiment 2 Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, as in Experiment 1, we were able to derive the same initial candidate parameters reflecting the time-series trial-level AB expression over time.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Experiment 2 Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the magnitude and direction of peaks vary within-and between-participants, as does the degree of temporal variability.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Traditional Computation of Attentional Bias.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, traditional BS demonstrated no significant association with TL-BS away parameters; a small association with TL-BS Variability (r = .31);and only moderate relations with TL-BS towards parameters (r's = .49to .55).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Relations Between Traditional BS and Trial-Level AB Parameters.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, neither mean RT on neutral trials nor”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Experiment 2 Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“observed individual differences in AB expression through TL-BSs revealed that the amplitude and direction of peaks vary within-and between-participants, as does the degree of temporal variability.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > General Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in Experiment 1, TL-BS demonstrated phasic bursts of differential attentional allocation over time as well as evidence of fluctuating temporal variability ranging from AB towards and/or away from smoking images.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Experiment 2 Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Traditional Bias Score (BS) was computed by subtracting mean CT from mean IT RTs (MacLeod & Mathews, 1988).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Traditional Computation of Attentional Bias.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites MacLeod & Mathews, 1988
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on this interview, one participant did not meet the criteria for spider phobia and was excluded.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Participants
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The FSQ has high internal consistency and good test-retest stability, and adequately discriminate phobic from non-phobic populations (Muris & Merckelbach, 1996).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Materials & Apparatus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Muris & Merckelbach, 1996
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, research to-date has not directly tested these assumptions nor attempted to evaluate the expression of AB concurrent with its expression in time.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“At the beginning of the baseline session, all participants were screened for spider phobia with the Dutch version of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV (ADIS-IV; Brown, DiNardo, & Barlow, 1994; Dutch translation by Bouman, de Ruiter, & Hoogduin, 1995).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Participants
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown, DiNardo, & Barlow, 1994
- Not checked yetcites Bouman, de Ruiter, & Hoogduin, 1995
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, in contrast to more heterogeneous clinical populations (e.g., Generalized Anxiety Disorder) or threat-related stimuli, extant theory would predict a stable or static signal of AB in this sample.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > EXPERIMENT 1 Introduction
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Put differently, it is thought that each trial reflects an equivalent sample from the same underlying stable trait-like signal of AB.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The anxiogenic stimuli relevant to the specific clinical population provide a strong experimental context to rigorously test the novel hypothesis about AB temporal dynamics.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > EXPERIMENT 1 Introduction
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, normative and dysregulated selective attention is a psychological process expressed repeatedly and continuously over time.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As described in the Introduction, computation of TL-BS enables quantification of novel parameters of AB expression in time.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Trial-Level Attentional Bias: Quantitative Parameters. As described in the Introduction, computation of TL-BS enables quantification of novel parameters of AB expression in time.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second related corollary justifying extant quantification of AB is that each person may either express AB towards or away from motivationally-relevant stimuli.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TL-BS may be further quantified to parameters that may capture novel dynamic features of AB expression, and thus allow empirical tests of TL-BS significance and importance.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These types of parameters of TL-BS may include: individual differences in phasic bursts or”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, based on our theorizing regarding the dynamics of AB expression, we identified 3 candidate parameters of trial-level AB that permit direct study of TL-BS or AB in time, comparison of TL-BS parameters between groups, relative to correlates, etc.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Trial-Level Attentional Bias: Quantitative Parameters. As described in the Introduction, computation of TL-BS enables quantification of novel parameters of AB expression in time.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, 10 of the 45 participants asked to re-schedule session 2 -this may be due to difficulty in initiating or maintaining the 18-hour smoking deprivation or for unrelated reasons; all of these participants then successfully completed session 2.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Participants
plainn = 45- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in Experiment 1, the controlled context-specific appetitive motivational-relevance of the stimuli provides a rigorous context to explore the stability of AB expression in time.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > EXPERIMENT 2 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“CO < 6 PPM indicate that the participant had not smoked in the past 18-hours and eligible for session 2 (Shoptaw et al., 2002).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Session 2: Experimental Task Under Deprivation.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shoptaw et al., 2002
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The visual emotional dot probe task (MacLeod et al., 1986) was used to measure AB.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Attentional Bias Measurement.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites MacLeod et al., 1986
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Split-half reliability is predominantly examined in the field of AB by randomly splitting task items/trials into two halves (Waechter et al., 2014;Schmukle et al., 2005).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Split-Half Reliability of Traditional BS and Trial-Level AB Parameters.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Waechter et al., 2014
- Not checked yetcites Schmukle et al., 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in the case of the TL-BS approach, as in many other behavioral paradigms (e.g.Implicit Association Task), order of trials in time is crucial.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Split-Half Reliability of Traditional BS and Trial-Level AB Parameters.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings indicate that traditional BS estimation does not likely represent a more valid,”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > General Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, the computation of TL-BS requires no change in the standard use of the Dot-Probe task, as the input for the calculation is simply RTs and trial type (CT/IT) as in the traditional mean BS estimation.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias 28
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, TL-BS may also be readily preformed for all related tasks (e.g., modified -spatial cueing,visual search, -stroop, etc.) in which AB is sampled repeatedly over time, in temporally contiguous contrasting trials (e.g., congruent/valid vs. incongruent/invalid vs. neutral).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > General Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the computational methodology used to estimate TL-BS or AB in time in the reported experiments represent only one of multiple potential related approaches.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias 28
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TL-BS is thus a sequential, signal-like series of IT-CT difference scores that reflect AB estimations in timeconcurrent with the expressed repeated allocation of attention.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias 28
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: AB expression can be modeled as a time-series signal.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Two temporally contiguous trials are more likely reflective of the same AB signal than are two more temporally distal trials.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that the TL-BS computation may be readily preformed on any dot probe task data.”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > General Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“to permit sufficient measurement samples of the temporal dynamics AB and to optimally compute parameters of AB dynamics, the TL-BS computation necessitates a minimum number of trials (e.g., we estimate at least 40 not including neutral trials)”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > General Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, to compute split-half reliability of the TL-BS parameters, twice as many trials are likely needed (e.g., 80 trials).”
§ RUNNING HEAD: Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias > General Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The authors state this as an assumption.
AB expression can be modeled as a time-series signal.
“the time-series assumption of AB expression”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Two temporally contiguous trials are more likely reflective of the same AB signal than are two more temporally distal trials.
“the assumption that two temporally contiguous trials (e.g., trial 8 and 9) are more likely reflective of the same AB signal than are two more temporally distal trials (e.g., trial 8 and trial 18).”
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?
In the citing paper
“Regression analyses indicated that fear disorder was independently associated with greater AB variability at 200 ms and 500 ms (which suggested rapid fluctuations between vigilance and avoidance), and also with increased AB to threat on the standard AB index at 200 ms, but not 500 ms.”
From Anxiety and attention to threat: cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification (2016) · cites this paper as Zvielli et al., 2014
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentt(62) = 12.59reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t (62) = 12.59, p < .001”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
American Psychiatric Association (2013) · doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 · Cited by 116,369
Neural Mechanisms of Selective Visual Attention
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205 · Cited by 8,388
Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., Sanislow, C., & Wang, P. (2010) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379 · Cited by 7,067
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197 · Cited by 5,815
Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336 · Cited by 5,289 · cited 3×
“Such temporal dynamics may reflect attentional dyscontrol (Bishop, 2008; Bishop, Duncan, Brett, & Lawrence, 2004; Derryberry & Reed, 2002; Eysenck et al., 2007) or controlled efforts to regulate emotional responding (i.e., readjust attentional allocation; Heeren, De Raedt, Koster, & Philippot,…”
BackgroundThreat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study.
Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1 · Cited by 3,721
Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search
Wolfe, J. M. (1994) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03200774 · Cited by 3,645
Attentional bias in emotional disorders
MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.95.1.15 · Cited by 3,152
Fears, phobias, and preparedness: toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.483 · Cited by 3,147 · cited 1×
“Second, we hypothesized greater levels of TL-BS toward spider stimuli will discriminate between spider phobics and healthy controls (Lavy, Van den Hout, & Arntz, 1993; Öhman, Flykt, & Esteves, 2001; Öhman & Mineka, 2001).”
BackgroundA cognitive model of social phobia
Adrian Wells, A. (1995) · Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) · Cited by 2,701
Attentional bias in emotional disorders.
MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. R. (1986) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-843x.95.1.15 · Cited by 2,553
Emotion drives attention: Detecting the snake in the grass.
Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.466 · Cited by 2,542
The emotional Stroop task and psychopathology
Williams, J. M. G., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.1.3 · Cited by 2,420
Addiction motivation reformulated: an affective processing model of negative reinforcement
Baker, T. B., Piper, M. E., McCarthy, D. E., Majeskie, M. R., & Fiore, M. C. (2004) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.111.1.33 · Cited by 2,162
Cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders
Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2005) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143916 · Cited by 2,100
Cognitive Psychology and Emotional Disorders
Williams, J. M. G. (1988) · UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) · Cited by 1,871
Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An integrative review
Cisler, J. M., & Koster, E. H. W. (2010) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.003 · Cited by 1,753
Self-citationAnxiety-related attentional biases and their regulation by attentional control.
Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (2002) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.111.2.225 · Cited by 1,729
A cognitive-motivational analysis of anxiety.
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (1998) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(98)00063-1 · Cited by 1,642
Pashler, H. (1997) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5677.001.0001 · Cited by 1,607
Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety?
Fox, E., Russo, R., Bowles, R., & Dutton, K. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.681 · Cited by 1,469
Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment
Franklin, M. E. (1996) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/s0272-7358(96)00036-0 · Cited by 1,389
Cognitive Neuroscience of Emotion
(1999) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195118889.001.0001 · Cited by 1,289
Primary and secondary saccades to goals defined by instructions
Hallett, P. E. (1978) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/0042-6989(78)90218-3 · Cited by 1,262
Eye tracking of attention in the affective disorders: a meta-analytic review and synthesis
Armstrong, T., & Olatunji, B. O. (2012) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.004 · Cited by 1,049 · cited 1×
“Similarly, other recent work has also evaluated overt attention (i.e., eye movement data; Armstrong & Olatunji, 2012; Bradley, Mogg, & Millar, 2000).”
ResultPrefrontal cortical function and anxiety: Controlling attention to threat-related stimuli
Bishop, S., Duncan, J., Brett, M., & Lawrence, A. D. (2004) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1173 · Cited by 940
A meta-analysis of the effect of cognitive bias modification on anxiety and depression
Hallion, L. S., & Ruscio, A. M. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0024355 · Cited by 891
Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders
Brewin, C. (1989) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(89)90110-1 · Cited by 880
Trait anxiety and impoverished prefrontal control of attention.
Bishop, S. J. (2009) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2242 · Cited by 869
Anxiety and the Allocation of Attention to Threat
MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1988) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/14640748808402292 · Cited by 817
Mechanisms of human attention: event-related potentials and oscillations
Herrmann, C. S., & Knight, R. T. (2001) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(01)00027-6 · Cited by 628
Field, M., Munafò, M. R., & Franken, I. H. A. (2009) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0015843 · Cited by 602
De Raedt, R., & Koster, E. H. W. (2010) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/cabn.10.1.50 · Cited by 583
Self-citationUnreliability of the dot probe task
Schmukle, S. C. (2005) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.554 · Cited by 538
Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Miles, F. J., & Dixon, R. (2004) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930341000158 · Cited by 500
Wiers, R. W., Gladwin, T. E., Hofmann, W., Salemink, E., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2013) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702612466547 · Cited by 486
A review of current evidence for the causal impact of attentional bias on fear and anxiety
Van Bockstaele, B., Verschuere, B., Tibboel, H., De Houwer, J., Crombez, G., & Koster, E. H. W. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0034834 · Cited by 485
Self-citationAnxiety and attention to threatening pictures
Yiend, J., & Mathews, A. (2001) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/713755991 · Cited by 472
Monk, C. S., Nelson, E. E., McClure, E. B., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Leibenluft, E., Blair, R. J. R., Chen, G., Charney, D. S., Ernst, M., et al. (2006) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.2006.163.6.1091 · Cited by 458
Fear of spiders’ questionnaire
Szymanski, J., & O'Donohue, W. (1995) · Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/0005-7916(94)00072-t · Cited by 450 · cited 5×
“At first, they were presented with the Fear of Spiders Questionnaire (FSQ).”
MethodInfluentialSiegle, G. J., Ghinassi, F., & Thase, M. E. (2007) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-006-9118-6 · Cited by 444
Covert and overt orienting of attention to emotional faces in anxiety
Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., & Millar, N. (2000) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930050156636 · Cited by 427
MCKENNA, F. P., & Sharma, D. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.382 · Cited by 354
Attentional bias predicts outcome in smoking cessation.
Waters, A. J., Shiffman, S., Sayette, M. A., Paty, J. A., Gwaltney, C. J., & Balabanis, M. H. (2003) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.22.4.378 · Cited by 332
Dalgleish, T., Taghavi, R., Neshat-Doost, H., Moradi, A., Canterbury, R., & Yule, W. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3201_02 · Cited by 328
Measuring attentional bias to threat: reliability of dot probe and eye movement indices
Waechter, S., Nelson, A. L., Wright, C., Hyatt, A., & Oakman, J. (2014) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-013-9588-2 · Cited by 324
Phenomenological characteristics of attentional biases towards threat: A critical review
Cisler, J. M., Bacon, A. K., & Williams, N. L. (2009) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-007-9161-y · Cited by 306
Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Lundqvist, D. (1999) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195118889.003.0013 · Cited by 293
Efficacy of attention bias modification using threat and appetitive stimuli: a meta-analytic review
Beard, C., Sawyer, A. T., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2012.01.002 · Cited by 291
Introduction to the special section on cognitive bias modification in emotional disorders
Koster, E. H. W., Fox, E., & MacLeod, C. (2009) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0014379 · Cited by 272
Mogg, K., Holmes, A., Garner, M. J., & Bradley, B. P. (2008) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2008.02.011 · Cited by 262
Attention biases, anxiety, and development: toward or away from threats or rewards?
Shechner, T., Britton, J. C., Pérez‐Edgar, K. E., Bar‐Haim, Y., Ernst, M., Fox, N. A., Leibenluft, E., & Pine, D. S. (2011) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.20914 · Cited by 252
Lateral prefrontal cortex mediates the cognitive modification of attentional bias
Browning, M., Holmes, E. A., Murphy, S. E., Goodwin, G. M., & Harmer, C. J. (2010) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.10.031 · Cited by 236
Smoking cessation in methadone maintenance
SHOPTAW, S. J., Rotheram-Fuller, E. J., Yang, X., Frosch, D. L., Nahom, D., Jarvik, M. E., Rawson, R. A., & Ling, W. W. (2002) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00221.x · Cited by 235
Selective attention to threat: A test of two cognitive models of anxiety
Mogg, K., McNamara, J., Powys, M., Rawlinson, H., Seiffer, A., & Bradley, B. P. (2000) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/026999300378888 · Cited by 232
Wilson, E., & MacLeod, C. (2003) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.112.2.212 · Cited by 230
Attentional bias to angry faces using the dot-probe task? It depends when you look for it
Cooper, R. M., & Langton, S. R. H. (2006) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.10.004 · Cited by 228
A comparison of two spider fear questionnaires
Muris, P., & Merckelbach, H. (1996) · Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s0005-7916(96)00022-5 · Cited by 215
Mogg, K., Bradley, B., Dixon, C., Fisher, S., Twelftree, H., & McWilliams, A. (2000) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(99)00157-9 · Cited by 213
Robinson, O. J., Charney, D. R., Overstreet, C. M., Vytal, K. E., & Grillon, C. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.096 · Cited by 212
Enhanced neural reactivity and selective attention to threat in anxiety
Eldar, S., Yankelevitch-Yahav, R., Lamy, D., & Bar‐Haim, Y. (2010) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.07.010 · Cited by 194
Life-threatening danger and suppression of attention bias to threat
Bar-Haim, Y., Holoshitz, Y., Eldar, S., Frenkel, T. I., Muller, D., Charney, D. S., Pine, D. S., Fox, N. A., & Wald, I. (2010) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09070956 · Cited by 193
Beevers, C., Wells, T. T., Ellis, A., & McGeary, J. (2009) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0016198 · Cited by 187
Time course of attentional bias for fear-relevant pictures in spider-fearful individuals
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2006) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2006.05.003 · Cited by 186
Pérez‐Edgar, K. E., Bar‐Haim, Y., McDermott, J. M., Gorodetsky, E. K., Hodgkinson, C. A., Goldman, D. A., Ernst, M., Pine, D. S., & Fox, N. A. (2009) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.08.009 · Cited by 175
Attentional bias and spider phobia: Conceptual and clinical issues
Lavy, E., van den Hout, M., & Arntz, A. (1993) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(93)90038-v · Cited by 168
Hypervigilance–avoidance pattern in spider phobia
Pflugshaupt, T., Mosimann, U. P., von Wartburg, R., Schmitt, W. J., Nyffeler, T., & Müri, R. M. (2004) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2003.12.002 · Cited by 166
Attention and the Processing of Emotional Words and Names
Harris, C. R., & Pashler, H. (2004) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503005.x · Cited by 160
Heeren, A., De Raedt, R., Koster, E. H. W., & Philippot, P. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00119 · Cited by 148
Self-citationClarke, P., MacLeod, C., & Guastella, A. (2013) · Anxiety, Stress, & Coping · doi:10.1080/10615806.2011.638054 · Cited by 148
Fox, E., Zougkou, K., Ridgewell, A., & Garner, K. (2011) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.07.004 · Cited by 135
Dynamics of Attentional Bias to Threat in Anxious Adults: Bias towards and/or Away?
Zvielli, A., Bernstein, A., & Koster, E. H. W. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104025 · Cited by 94
Self-citationDear, B. F., Sharpe, L., Nicholas, M. K., & Refshauge, K. M. (2011) · Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2010.11.010 · Cited by 76
Ardid, S., Wang, X., Gómez-Cabrero, D., & Compte, A. (2010) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4222-09.2010 · Cited by 70
Bernstein, A., & Zvielli, A. (2014) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2014.01.003 · Cited by 67
Self-citationBROSSCHOT, J. F., de Ruiter, C., & Kindt, M. (1999) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00173-1 · Cited by 65
Sheppes, G., Luria, R., Fukuda, K., & Gross, J. J. (2013) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/a0031236 · Cited by 64
Social psychology of visual perception
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-3569 · Cited by 49
Brain Activation Associated with Attentional Bias in Smokers is Modulated by a Dopamine Antagonist
Luijten, M., Veltman, D. J., Hester, R., Smits, M., Pepplinkhuizen, L., & Franken, I. H. A. (2012) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2012.143 · Cited by 41
Osinsky, R., Lösch, A., Hennig, J., Alexander, N., & MacLeod, C. (2012) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/a0026674 · Cited by 37
Clarke, P., Chen, N. T. M., & Guastella, A. J. (2011) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/a0025592 · Cited by 36
Raes, A. K., Koster, E. H. W., Loeys, T., & Raedt, R. D. (2011) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.06.003 · Cited by 26
Self-citationLimited transfer of threat bias following attentional retraining
Bockstaele, B. V., Koster, E. H. W., Verschuère, B., Crombez, G., & Houwer, J. D. (2011) · Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2011.11.001 · Cited by 23
Self-citationDe validiteit van het Anxiety Disorders Interview schedule-revised (ADIS-R): een pilot study
Bouman, T. K. (1991) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 6
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Bouman T. K., 1991, Gedragstherapie, 24, 77
- Brown T. A., 1994, Anxiety disorders interview schedule for DSM-IV: Client interview schedule
- Lang P. J., 1997, Attention and orienting: Sensory and motivational processes, 97
- Schneider W., 2002, E-prime: User’s guide
- 10.1037/a0034834 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Anxiety and attention to threat: cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2016) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.08.001 · Cited by 313
Attention bias modification for social anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Heeren, A., Mogoașe, C., Philippot, P., & McNally, R. J. (2015) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.001 · Cited by 312
Unreliability as a threat to understanding psychopathology: The cautionary tale of attentional bias.
Rodebaugh, T. L., Scullin, R. B., Langer, J. K., Dixon, D. J., Huppert, J. D., Bernstein, A., Zvielli, A., & Lenze, E. J. (2016) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/abn0000184 · Cited by 312
Self-citationAttentional bias for threat: Crisis or opportunity?
McNally, R. J. (2018) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2018.05.005 · Cited by 272
Mogg, K., Waters, A. M., & Bradley, B. P. (2017) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702617696359 · Cited by 215
Metadata
- Authors
- Zvielli, A., Bernstein, A., & Koster, E. H. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Haifa (IL)
- Ghent University (BE)
- Venue
- Clinical Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-10-08
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 772-788
- ISSN
- 2167-7026 (ISSN-L)
- 2167-7034
- OpenAlex
- W2321542948
- Semantic Scholar
- 22d786bba0e94fb96f717684133a2e227db89e0a
- Cited by
- 237
- References
- 83
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 27.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- biblio.ugent.be
- Locations
- Clinical Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Psychology Beyond Borders
- European Commission
- Council for Higher Education
- University of Haifa
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- attentional bias, temporal dynamics, emotional attention, dot-probe task, spider phobia, smoking, smoking cessation, psychopathology, addiction
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
