Attention bias modification for children: what should we make of a null finding?

Clinical relevance of attentional biases in pediatric chronic pain: an eye-tracking study

ABSTRACT

Attentional biases have been posited as one of the key mechanisms underlying the development and maintenance of chronic pain and co-occurring internalizing mental health symptoms. Despite this theoretical prominence, a comprehensive understanding of the nature of biased attentional processing in chronic pain and its relationship to theorized antecedents and clinical outcomes is lacking, particularly in youth. This study used eye-tracking to assess attentional bias for painful facial expressions and its relationship to theorized antecedents of chronic pain and clinical outcomes. Youth with chronic pain (n = 125) and without chronic pain (n = 52) viewed face images of varying levels of pain expressiveness while their eye gaze was tracked and recorded. At baseline, youth completed questionnaires to assess pain characteristics, theorized antecedents (pain catastrophizing, fear of pain, and anxiety sensitivity), and clinical outcomes (pain intensity, interference, anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress). For youth with chronic pain, clinical outcomes were reassessed at 3 months to assess for relationships with attentional bias while controlling for baseline symptoms. In both groups, youth exhibited an attentional bias for painful facial expressions. For youth with chronic pain, attentional bias was not significantly associated with theorized antecedents or clinical outcomes at baseline or 3-month follow-up. These findings call into question the posited relationships between attentional bias and clinical outcomes. Additional studies using more comprehensive and contextual paradigms for the assessment of attentional bias are required to clarify the ways in which such biases may manifest and relate to clinical outcomes.

Making Sense of Negative Findings from Mobile Attention Bias Modification Interventions for Individuals with Addictive Disorders: Quantitative Feasibility Study

Background

Advances in experimental psychology have led to a better understanding of unconscious, automatic processes that result in individuals relapsing into their substance-using habits. While some reviews have demonstrated the effectiveness of bias retraining of these unconscious biases, there have been other reviews that have highlighted that bias retraining is not always effective. Other studies have revealed there was no baseline biases among some participants. An examination of mobile bias retraining interventions has also revealed mixed results, with some reporting effectiveness and others null findings. A recent feasibility and acceptability study, done by the authors, revealed that 53% of participants have had no baseline biases and 21% of those with positive baseline biases did not have a positive change in magnitude following intervention.

Objective

The aim of this paper was to explore potential variables (demographic and clinical) that could account for the negative baseline biases in the prior feasibility and acceptability study, and to discuss some of the factors that could account for the absence of baseline biases. We also explored potential reasons for why there was no reduction in the magnitude of attentional biases among individuals with baseline biases.

Methods

Participants who were in the rehabilitation phase of their treatment were invited to participate. During the study they had to complete a set of baseline questionnaires, and on each day that they were on the ward they had to complete an attention bias assessment and modification task and rate their cravings using a visual analogue scale. Attention bias was deemed to be present if individuals had a positive score.

Results

In our study, 53% (16/30) of individuals did not present with baseline attentional biases, and among those with positive baseline biases a total of 21% (3/14) of participants did not have a reduction in the overall magnitude of attentional biases. Chi-square analyses undertaken to compare the demographic characteristics of participants with and without baseline biases did not reveal any significant findings. However, with respect to clinical characteristics, those who had positive baseline biases had experimented with more substances.

Conclusions

Our study is one of the first to have explored negative findings in attention bias modification interventions for individuals with addictive disorders. We postulate that several factors could account for the absence of baseline biases and there being no changes following bias retraining. Future research ought to take into consideration these factors.