Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28092078›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2017

The dot-probe task to measure emotional attention: A suitable measure in comparative studies?

Rianne van Rooijen, Annemie Ploeger, Mariska E Kret

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06531733 (Sleep and Wake Countermeasures for Artemis), which is not on this map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06531733 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Sleep and Wake Countermeasures for Artemis: In-laboratory Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)Ran2024 to 2025Enrolled24ConditionsFatigueArmsSleep Promoting (pink noise), Wake Promoting (blue enriched light plus a nap)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. No Evidence of Reliability Across 36 Variations of the Emotional Dot-Probe Task in 9,600 Participants.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rianne van RooijenDepartments of Experimental and Developmental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Annemie PloegerDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mariska E KretCognitive Psychology Unit, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands. m.e.kret@fsw.leidenuniv.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For social animals, attending to and recognizing the emotional expressions of other individuals is of crucial importance for their survival and likely has a deep evolutionary origin. Gaining insight into how emotional expressions evolved as adaptations over the course of evolution can be achieved by making direct cross-species comparisons. To that extent, experimental paradigms that are suitable for investigating emotional processing across species need to be developed and evaluated. The emotional dot-probe task, which measures attention allocation toward emotional stimuli, has this potential. The task is implicit, and subjects need minimal training to perform the task successfully. Findings in nonhuman primates, although scarce, show that they, like humans, have an attentional bias toward emotional stimuli. However, the wide literature on human studies has shown that different factors can have important moderating effects on the results. Due to the large heterogeneity of this literature, these moderating effects often remain unnoticed. We here review this literature and show that subject characteristics and differences in experimental designs affect the results of the dot-probe task. We conclude with specific recommendations regarding these issues that are particularly relevant to take into consideration when applying this paradigm to study animals.

Indexed as

Social PerceptionAnimalsAttentionEmotionsHumansAttentionComparativeCross-speciesDot-probe taskEmotion

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.