ArticlePsychophysiology2024
Assessing motivational biases in brain and behavior: Event-related potential and response time concomitants of the approach-avoidance task.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Brain Dynamics Within the Approach-Avoidance Bias.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Exploring automatic approach-avoidance tendencies: the impact of self-relevant social feedback on behavior.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The approach-avoidance task (AAT) is designed to measure implicit motivated action biases instantiated by emotional stimuli and alterations in such biases that drive psychiatric disorder. While some research has measured AAT event-related potential (ERP) correlates to establish bias sensitivity even at a neural level, a lack of work with unpleasant, pleasant, and neutral stimuli together and a common focus on psychiatric disorder-matched (rather than generally emotional) content limits conclusions that can be drawn. Thus, current work extends the AAT literature by testing ERP modulations across normatively unpleasant, pleasant, and neutral conditions; and supporting the task's use as an individual difference assessment, it also provides data on AAT reliability and initially explores anxiety-related effects when stimuli are not disorder-matched. In 38 participants including 19 anxiety treatment-seeking individuals, 32 sensor electroencephalography revealed robust N100, N200, and late positive potential (LPP) ERP components and bias-consistent modulations for unpleasant images (reduced N200s on unpleasant push relative to pull trials; enhanced LPP for unpleasant compared to neutral trials). Meanwhile, modulations were less consistent with emotion-driven bias for other conditions-that is, LPPs were enhanced but N200 was not modulated for pleasant images, and for neutral images, N200 was unexpectedly enhanced on push compared to pull trials. Following these analyses, reliability tests revealed excellent raw ERP reliabilities but lower reliabilities for modulation scores, and comparing treatment- to non-treatment-seeking groups showed no preliminary indication of ERP modulation changes when stimuli are not personally relevant. How these findings together inform understanding of AAT as a measure of bias is discussed.
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.