ArticleJournal of affective disorders reports2022
The questionable validity of attention bias variability: Evidence from two conceptually unrelated cognitive tasks.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attentional bias toward food in binge eating disorder: baseline differences and the limits of attention modification training.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Negative affective priming: Reliability and associations with depression symptoms in three samples.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Eye-tracking indices of attention allocation and attention bias variability are differently related to trauma exposure and PTSD.Journal of anxiety disorders · 2023Article
- Reliability of attention bias and attention bias variability to climate change images in the dot-probe task.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- The trial-by-trial fluctuations in primary motor cortex excitability during attentional bias among smokers: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.