Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36684713›Full record

ArticleJournal of affective disorders reports2022

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

Joshua M Carlson, Lin Fang, Dahlia Kassel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of affective disorders reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Joshua M CarlsonDepartment of Psychological Science, Northern Michigan University, 1401 Presque Isle Avenue, Marquette, MI 49855, USA.
Lin FangDepartment of Psychological Science, Northern Michigan University, 1401 Presque Isle Avenue, Marquette, MI 49855, USA.
Dahlia KasselDepartment of Psychological Science, Northern Michigan University, 1401 Presque Isle Avenue, Marquette, MI 49855, USA.

Funding

Neuroplasticity in an Extended Amygdala Network as a Target Mechanism for Attention Bias Modification OutcomeR15MH110951 · NIMH · NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY · PI CARLSON, JOSHUA · 2017 to 2017
$358k
NIMH NIH HHS R15 MH110951
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Attention bias variability is thought to measure fluctuations in attention towards and away from threat-related information and is elevated in affective disorders. However, recent evidence suggests that attention bias variability may quantify general reaction time variability rather than attention bias behavior Methods: The current study calculated "attention bias variability" from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks: the dot-probe task (measuring attentional bias) and the arrow flanker task (measuring cognitive control). Results: Attention bias variability measures were correlated across these unrelated tasks. Yet, when general reaction time variability was controlled, attention bias variability across tasks was no longer correlated. In addition, the reliability of attention bias variability measures decreased when controlling for general reaction time variability. Finally, although attention bias variability calculated from the dot-probe task initially correlated with anxious symptoms, this association was no longer significant when controlling for general reaction time variability. Limitations: Our sample was comprised of high trait anxious individuals. Replication in clinical samples is warranted. Conclusions: These findings collectively provide strong empirical evidence that attention bias variability is not a valid measure of attention-related behavior, but reflective of general reaction time variability more broadly.

Indexed as

AnxietyAttention biasAttention bias variabilityDot-probe taskReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

PMID36684713
PMCPMC9851093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.