ArticlePsychological research2026
Anticipatory attentional avoidance in learned threat associations.
Article in Psychological research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The processing of threatening content tends to take priority over neutral or other emotional stimuli. Compared to other attentional biases (in response to threat), less research has been dedicated to understanding anticipatory attentional avoidance, and existing studies on this topic have yielded mixed results. In this study, we investigated anticipatory attentional avoidance, focusing on how predictive cues associated with threatening stimuli influence attentional processing before the actual threat appears. We used a cued visual probe task, in which a neutral cue (onset times: 100, 500, or 1000ms) predicted the location of a threatening stimulus. Across two experiments, we examined both behavioral and eye-tracking measures to capture avoidance patterns. In Experiment 1 (behavioral: N = 33; eye-tracking: N = 23), predictive cues appeared in the same location as the subsequent target (i.e., in the corners of the screen), while in Experiment 2 (behavioral: N = 51; eye-tracking: N = 22), predictive cues were presented centrally, separating cue and target locations. Our results showed that participants associated the threatening content with the predictive cue and learned to avoid attending to the spatial position of the threat-related stimuli. This avoidance was reflected in slower reaction times and gaze patterns that shifted away from the threat-predictive cues during presentation, particularly at longer cue presentation times. However, we found no differences in the onset of gaze shifts to the target, suggesting that avoidance occurs primarily during early anticipatory stages. These findings suggest that anticipatory attentional avoidance may appear as a distinct process that could emerge in response to learned threat associations.
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.