Cited by 91Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Capturing dynamics of biased attention: are new attention variability measures the way forward

Open access
Kruijt, Anne-Wil, Field, Andy P., Fox, Elaine·2016·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: New indices, calculated on data from the widely used Dot Probe Task, were recently proposed to capture variability in biased attention allocation. We observed that it remains unclear which data pattern is meant to be indicative of dynamic bias and thus to be captured by these indices. Moreover, we hypothesized that the new indices are sensitive to SD differences at the response time (RT) level in the absence of bias. METHOD: Randomly generated datasets were analyzed to assess properties of the Attention Bias Variability (ABV) and Trial Level Bias Score (TL-BS) indices. Sensitivity to creating differences in 1) RT standard deviation, 2) mean RT, and 3) bias magnitude were assessed. In addition, two possible definitions of dynamic attention bias were explored by creating differences in 4) frequency of bias switching, and 5) bias magnitude in the presence of constant switching. RESULTS: ABV and TL-BS indices were found highly sensitive to increasing SD at the response time level, insensitive to increasing bias, linearly sensitive to increasing bias magnitude in the presence of bias switches, and non-linearly sensitive to increasing the frequency of bias switches. The ABV index was also found responsive to increasing mean response times in the absence of bias. CONCLUSION: Recently proposed DPT derived variability indices cannot uncouple measurement error from bias variability. Significant group differences may be observed even if there is no bias present in any individual dataset. This renders the new indices in their current form unfit for empirical purposes. Our discussion focuses on fostering debate and ideas for new research to validate the potentially very important notion of biased attention being dynamic.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0166600

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • The limited reliability of AB indices derived from manual response times may reflect measurement problems and the variability of anxiety-related ABs.

    “One research challenge is the limited reliability of AB indices derived from manual response times, which may reflect measurement problems and the variability of anxiety-related ABs, as discussed earlier [19,56-58,98].”
  • AB indices derived from manual response times have limited reliability.

    “One research challenge is the limited reliability of AB indices derived from manual response times, which may reflect measurement problems and the variability of anxiety-related ABs, as discussed earlier [19,56-58,98].”
  • AB assessment methods include visual probe, spatial cueing, modified Stroop, flanker, and visual search tasks.

    “AB assessment methods include visual probe, spatial cueing, modified Stroop, flanker, and visual search tasks [6,7,12,19,35,53-55,86,98-100].”

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
Kruijt, A.-W., Field, A. P., & Fox, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
Kruijt, Anne-Wil
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2016-11-22
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
e0166600
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2553568258
Cited by
91
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 5
FWCI
18.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
European Research Council (324176)
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 › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
dot-probe task, reaction time variability, measurement error
MeSH terms
Attentional Bias, Computer Simulation, Humans, Models, Biological

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