Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31286155›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2019

Beer? Over here! Examining attentional bias towards alcoholic and appetitive stimuli in a visual search eye-tracking task.

Charlotte R Pennington, Adam W Qureshi, Rebecca L Monk, Katie Greenwood, Derek Heim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Attentional Bias During a Novel Alcohol Cue Virtual Reality Paradigm.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

5 authors.

Charlotte R PenningtonDepartment of Health and Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK. charlotte.pennington@uwe.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5259-642X
Adam W QureshiDepartment of Psychology, Edge Hill University, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK.
Rebecca L MonkDepartment of Psychology, Edge Hill University, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK.
Katie GreenwoodDepartment of Psychology, Edge Hill University, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK.
Derek HeimDepartment of Psychology, Edge Hill University, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleExperimental tasks that demonstrate alcohol-related attentional bias typically expose participants to single-stimulus targets (e.g. addiction Stroop, visual probe, anti-saccade task), which may not correspond fully with real-world contexts where alcoholic and non-alcoholic cues simultaneously compete for attention. Moreover, alcoholic stimuli are rarely matched to other appetitive non-alcoholic stimuli.

objectivesTo address these limitations by utilising a conjunction search eye-tracking task and matched stimuli to examine alcohol-related attentional bias.

methodsThirty social drinkers (Mage = 19.87, SD = 1.74) were asked to detect whether alcoholic (beer), non-alcoholic (water) or non-appetitive (detergent) targets were present or absent amongst a visual array of matching and non-matching distractors. Both behavioural response times and eye-movement dwell time were measured.

resultsSocial drinkers were significantly quicker to detect alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive targets relative to non-appetitive targets in an array of matching and mismatching distractors. Similarly, proportional dwell time was lower for both alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive distractors relative to non-appetitive distractors, suggesting that appetitive targets were relatively easier to detect.

conclusionsSocial drinkers may exhibit generalised attentional bias towards alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive cues. This adds to emergent research suggesting that the mechanisms driving these individual's attention towards alcoholic cues might 'spill over' to other appetitive cues, possibly due to associative learning.

Indexed as

BeerCuesAdolescentAdultAlcohol DrinkingAttentionAttentional BiasConditioning, ClassicalEye MovementsFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationPsychomotor PerformanceRandom AllocationReaction TimeAlcohol consumptionAppetitive processingAttentional biasEye-trackingVisual search

Identifiers

PMID31286155
PMCPMC6892770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.