The questionable validity of attention bias variability: Evidence from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks

Contamination fear and attention bias variability early in the COVID-19 pandemic

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a dramatic increase in the salience and importance of information relating to both the risk of infection, and factors that could mitigate against such risk. This is likely to have contributed to elevated contamination fear concerns in the general population. Biased attention for contamination-related information has been proposed as a potential mechanism underlying contamination fear, though evidence regarding the presence of such biased attention has been inconsistent. A possible reason for this is that contamination fear may be characterised by variability in attention bias that has not yet been examined. The current study examined the potential association between attention bias variability for both contamination-related and mitigation-related stimuli, and contamination fear during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. A final sample of 315 participants completed measures of attention bias and contamination fear. The measure of average attention bias for contamination-related stimuli and mitigation-related stimuli was not associated with contamination fear (r = 0.055 and r = 0.051, p > 0.10), though both attention bias variability measures did show a small but statistically significant relationship with contamination fear (r = 0.133, p < 0.05; r = 0.147, p < 0.01). These attention bias variability measures also accounted for significant additional variance in contamination fear above the average attention bias measure (and controlling for response time variability). These findings provide initial evidence for the association between attention bias variability and contamination fear, underscoring a potential target for cognitive bias interventions for clinical contamination fear.

Reliability (or lack thereof) of smartphone ecological momentary assessment of visual dot probe attention bias toward threat indices

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cognitive bias theories posit that generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and social anxiety disorder (SAD) are entwined with attention bias toward threats, commonly indexed by faster response time (RT) on threat-congruent (vs. threat-incongruent) trials on the visual dot probe. Moreover, although smartphone ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of the visual dot probe has been developed, their psychometric properties are understudied. This study thus aimed to assess the reliability of 8 smartphone-delivered visual dot probe attention bias and related indices in persons with and without GAD and SAD.

METHODS

Community-dwelling adults (n = 819; GAD: 64%; SAD: 49%; Mixed GAD and SAD: 37%; Non-GAD/SAD Controls: 24%) completed a five-trial smartphone-delivered visual dot probe for a median of 60 trials (12 sessions x 5 trials/session) and an average of 100 trials (20 sessions x 5 trials/session).

RESULTS

As hypothesized, Global Attention Bias Index, Disengagement Effect, and Facilitation Bias had low-reliability estimates. However, retest-reliability and internal reliability were good for Trial-Level Bias Scores (TLBS) (Bias Toward Treat: intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) = 0.626-0.644; split-half r = 0.640-0.670; Attention Bias Variability: ICCs = 0.507-0.567; split-half r = 0.520-0.580) and (In)congruent RTs. Poor retest-reliability and internal reliability estimates were consistently observed for all traditional attention bias and related indices but not TLBS.

LIMITATIONS

Our visual dot probe EMA should have administered ≥320 trials to match best-practice guidelines based on similar laboratory studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should strive to examine attention bias paradigms beyond the dot-probe task that evidenced meaningful test-retest reliability properties in laboratory and real-world naturalistic settings.

Negative affective priming: Reliability and associations with depression symptoms in three samples

The negative affective priming (NAP) task is a behavioral measure of inhibition of emotional stimuli. Previous studies using the NAP task have found that individuals with depression show reduced inhibition of negative stimuli, suggesting that inhibition biases may play a role in the etiology and maintenance of depression. However, the psychometric properties of the NAP task have not been evaluated or reported. In the present study, we report data on the association between NAP task performance and depression symptoms in three independent samples, and we evaluate the internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the NAP effect indices. The NAP effect for both negative and positive target words had poor internal consistency in all three samples, as well as poor 2-week (Study 2) and 6-month (Study 3) test-retest reliability. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of response times (RT) for the individual trial types were moderate to high, as were the intercorrelations between trial types. This pattern of results indicates that overall RT is reliable but variance in RTs for the different trial types in the NAP task is indistinguishable from variance in overall RT. Depression symptom severity was not associated with the NAP effect for negative or positive target words in any of the samples, which could be due to the poor reliability of the NAP effect. Based on these findings, we do not recommend that researchers use the NAP task as a measure of individual differences in the inhibition of emotional stimuli.

Eye-tracking indices of attention allocation and attention bias variability are differently related to trauma exposure and PTSD

Amplified attention allocation to negative information in one's environment has been implicated in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Attention bias variability (ABV), the magnitude of attention fluctuation between negative and neutral cues, has also been found to be elevated in PTSD. While eye-tracking methodology has been used in research on attention allocation in PTSD, ABV was only explored using manual reaction-time-based indices. Thirty-seven participants with PTSD, 34 trauma-exposed healthy controls (TEHC), and 30 non-exposed healthy controls (HC) completed an eye-tracking free-viewing task in which matrices comprised of neutral and negatively-valenced faces were presented. Threat-related attention allocation was calculated as the proportion of dwell time (DT%) on negatively-valenced faces. Eye-tracking-based ABV was calculated as the standard deviation of DT% across matrices. DT% on negatively-valenced faces was greater in participants with PTSD compared to both TEHC (p = .036, d = 0.50) and HC (p < .001, d = 1.03), with TEHCs showing a greater attentional bias compared to HCs (p = .001, d = 0.84). Controlling for average fixation duration, ABV was higher in both the PTSD and TEHC groups relative to the HC group (p = .004, d = 0.40), with no difference between the two trauma-exposed groups. Biased attention allocation toward negative social information is related to PTSD pathology, whereas elevated ABV measured with eye-tracking appear to be related to trauma-exposure per-se.

Sleep-related attentional and interpretive-bias in insomnia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cognitive models of insomnia highlight internal and external cognitive-biases for sleep-related "threat" in maintaining the disorder. This systematic review of the sleep-related attentional and interpretive-bias literature includes meta-analytic calculations of each construct. Searches identified N = 21 attentional-bias and N = 8 interpretive-bias studies meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Seventeen attentional-bias studies compared normal-sleepers and poor-sleepers/insomnia patients. Using a random effects model, meta-analytic data based on standardized mean differences of attentional-bias studies determined the weighted pooled effect size to be moderate at 0.60 (95%CI:0.26-0.93). Likewise, seven of eight interpretive-bias studies involved group comparisons. Meta-analytic data determined the weighted pooled effect size as moderate at .44 (95%CI:0.19-0.69). Considering these outcomes, disorder congruent cognitive-biases appear to be a key feature of insomnia. Despite statistical support, absence of longitudinal data limits causal inference concerning the relative role cognitive-biases in the development and maintenance of insomnia. Methodological factors pertaining to task design, sample and stimuli are discussed in relation to outcome variation. Finally, we discuss the next steps in advancing the understanding of sleep-related biases in insomnia.

Reliability of attention bias and attention bias variability to climate change images in the dot-probe task

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of the 21st century, which is perhaps why information about climate change has been found to capture observers' attention. One of the most common ways of assessing individual differences in attentional processing of climate change information is through the use of reaction time difference scores. However, reaction time-based difference scores have come under scrutiny for their low reliability. Given that a primary goal of the field is to link individual differences in attention processing to participant variables (e.g., environmental attitudes), we assessed the reliability of reaction time-based measures of attention processing of climate change information utilizing an existing dataset with three variations of the dot-probe task. Across all three samples, difference score-based measures of attentional bias were generally uncorrelated across task blocks (r = -0.25 to 0.31). We also assessed the reliability of newer attention bias variability measures that are thought to capture dynamic shifts in attention toward and away from salient information. Although these measures were initially found to be correlated across task blocks (r = 0.17-0.67), they also tended to be highly correlated with general reaction time variability (r = 0.49-0.83). When controlling for general reaction time variability, the correlations across task blocks for attention bias variability were much weaker and generally nonsignificant (r = -0.25 to 0.33). Furthermore, these measures were unrelated to pro-environmental disposition indicating poor predictive validity. In short, reaction time-based measures of attentional processing (including difference score and variability-based approaches) have unacceptably low levels of reliability and are therefore unsuitable for capturing individual differences in attentional bias to climate change information.