Investigating the Effects of Inhibition Training on Attentional Bias Change: A Simple Bayesian Approach

The modulation of task relevance on emotion-induced blindness depends on whether targets and distractors belong to the same category

Previous research on emotion-induced blindness (EIB) argues emotional distractors capture attention in a bottom-up manner due to their physical and emotional salience. However, recent research has shown it is controversial whether EIB will be modulated by top-down factors. The present study further investigated whether the magnitude of EIB would be modulated by top-down factors, specifically the emotional relevance between tasks and distractors. Participants were divided into two groups having the same targets except for different task instructions. The orientation judgment group was asked to judge the orientation of the target (an emotionally irrelevant task), and the emotion judgment group was required to judge the emotional valence of the target (an emotionally relevant task). It was found the emotional relevance between tasks and distractors has no modulation on the magnitudes of EIB in two groups when targets and distractors are from different categories (Experiment 1), but a modulation when they are from the same category (Experiment 2). Consequently, we contend top-down task relevance modulates the EIB effect and distractors' priority is regulated by the emotional relevance between tasks and distractors. The current study holds attentional capture by stimulus-driven is unconditional in EIB, while attentional capture by goal-driven requires certain conditions.

Is impulsivity related to attentional bias in cigarette smokers? An exploration across levels of nicotine dependency and deprivation

Research has largely focused on how attentional bias to smoking-related cues and impulsivity independently influence the development and maintenance of cigarette smoking, with limited exploration of the relationship between these mechanisms. The current experiments systematically assessed relationships between multiple dimensions of impulsivity and attentional bias, at different stages of attention, in smokers varying in nicotine dependency and deprivation. Nonsmokers (NS; n  = 26), light-satiated smokers (LS; n  = 25), heavy-satiated smokers (HS; n  = 23) and heavy 12-hour nicotine-deprived smokers (HD; n  = 30) completed the Barratt Impulsivity Scale, delayed discounting task, stop-signal task, information sampling task and a visual dot-probe assessing initial orientation (200 ms) and sustained attention (2000 ms) toward smoking-related cues. Sustained attention to smoking-related cues was present in both HS and LS, while initial orientation bias was only evident in HS. HS and LS also had greater levels of trait motor and nonplanning impulsivity and heightened impulsive choice on the delay discounting task compared with NS, while heightened trait attentional impulsivity was only found in HS. In contrast, in HD, nicotine withdrawal was associated with no attentional bias but heightened reflection impulsivity, poorer inhibitory control and significantly lower levels of impulsive choice relative to satiated smokers. Trait and behavioral impulsivity were not related to the extent of attentional bias to smoking-related cues at any stage of attention, level of nicotine dependency or state of deprivation. Findings have both clinical and theoretical implications, highlighting the unique and independent roles impulsivity and attentional bias may play at different stages of the nicotine addiction cycle.

Attention and interpretation cognitive bias change: A systematic review and meta-analysis of bias modification paradigms

This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the effect of Cognitive Bias Modification for attention (CBM-A) and interpretation (CBM-I) on reducing the targeted biases and investigates moderators of each approach. PsycINFO, PsychArticles, and PubMED databases were searched for randomized-controlled studies published before March 2020 with pre- and post-CBM cognitive bias outcome measures, resulting in 91 CBM-A (n = 5914 individuals) and 70 CBM-I samples (n = 4802 individuals). Random-effects models and Hedge's g calculation showed significant medium overall effects of bias reduction with moderate to high heterogeneity (CBM-A g = 0.49 [0.36, 0.64], I² = 85.19%; CBM-I g = 0.58 [0.48, 0.68], I² = 70.92%). Effect sizes did not differ between approaches and remained significant after trim-and-fill adjustment for possible publication bias. Moderator variables were investigated with meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Participant age, symptom type, control condition and number of trials moderated CBM-A; student and clinical status moderated CBM-I effect size. Results support attention and interpretation modification in controlled laboratory and variable (online) training settings for non-clinical and clinical samples across various symptom types (anxiety, depression, substance use, eating disorders). Further empirical evidence is necessary to determine optimal sample and methodological combinations most strongly associated with adaptive behavioral outcomes.

Learned value and predictiveness affect gaze but not figure assignment

Many factors affect figure-ground segregation, but the contributions of attention and reward history to this process is uncertain. We conducted two experiments to investigate whether reward learning influences figure assignment and whether this relationship was mediated by attention. Participants learned to associate certain shapes with a reward contingency: During a learning phase, they chose between two shapes on each trial, with subsets of shapes associated with high-probability win, low-probability win, high-probability loss, and low-probability loss. In a test phase, participants were given a figure-ground task, in which they indicated which of two regions that shared a contour they perceived as the figure (high-probability win and low-probability win shapes were pitted against each other, as were high-probability loss and low-probability loss shapes). The results revealed that participants had learned the reward contingencies and that, following learning, attention was reliably drawn to the optimal stimulus. Despite this, neither reward history nor the resulting attentional allocation influenced figure-ground organization.