Laterality Effects for Higher Cognitive Processes
Robert Miller in Axonal Conduction Time and Human Cerebral Laterality, 2019
This statement implies that attentional biases could be the whole explanation of perceptual lateralization, with no requirement for inherent structural differences between hemispheres. In support of this view Lupien et al. (1993) showed a very good correlation amongst individuals between the degree of perceptual bias and a measure assumed to indicate attentional bias, in a visual task. Subjects were presented with two pairs of squares, one pair in each field, for 25 msec. On some trials, the members of the pair on one side were unequal in size. Subjects were required to identify, as fast as possible, the pair whose members were unequal in size. Reaction time for this task was generally long, about 1000 msec, with no laterality effect observed overall. Nevertheless, some subjects habitually showed a perceptual advantage in reaction time for detecting inequality in one field or the other, some subjects showing a consistent right field advantage, others a left field advantage. In addition, some subjects reported inequality even when there was none. This occurred for stimuli in the field to which they also had a perceptual advantage. Thus what appears to be an attentional bias correlated, over individuals, with their perceptual bias.
Human factors Part 1: The key to enhanced learning
Russell Kelsey in Patient Safety, 2016
Attitudinal biases tend to just set us up to fail – they usually do not lead to failure per se. When working under pressure humans are prone to attention bias; that is to say, when under pressure we find it very difficult to pay attention to everything that is going on without feeling overwhelmed. It is far easier to narrow our attention to a specific job in hand or to select a narrow range of focus – usually for something that is familiar to us. This process is a type of attentional bias and in medical practice this can have catastrophic consequences.
Substance misuse and young people: Reward mechanisms
Ilana B. Crome, Richard Williams, Roger Bloor, Xenofon Sgouros in Substance Misuse and Young People, 2019
As noted, human adolescence is a unique period in psychological development. During this time, risk and reward-centred behaviour may be a reflection of rapid growth and maturation in limbic affective and reward systems (Casey et al., 2008), which may underlie both impulsivity and vulnerability to addiction (Chambers et al., 2003). Compared with adults, adolescents appear less capable of considering the negative consequences of rewarded behaviour in hypothetical scenarios (Tangney et al., 1996; Reppucci, 1999). They also tend to base decisions on temporally immediate rather than distal outcomes (Gardner and Herman, 1991), and in some contexts, appear to be more motivated by reward than by negative reinforcement (ibid.). This has led some researchers to postulate that adolescent risk-taking behaviour might be driven by a disproportionate increase in NAc/VS motivational circuitry reactivity in response to rewards and reward-predicting stimuli. Cognitive-motivational perspectives of addiction also propose that prioritising of appetitive reward-related information (i.e., an attentional bias) is complicit in the development and maintenance of substance abuse. This proposal appears to be supported by research findings showing that adolescents, who demonstrate a generally enhanced appetitive bias, report greater amounts of substance use (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, cannabis) (van Hemel-Ruiter et al., 2013). This suggests that some adolescents with an exaggerated bias towards reward-related stimuli might be at increased risk of developing heavier drug use. Elevated striatal response to monetary reward have been reported to predict substance use onset over one year in adolescents, providing some evidence for the reward surfeit model (Stice et al., 2013). fMRI research in adolescent cannabis users also suggests disturbances in reward processing. Boys who frequently use cannabis, but who are in abstinence, have also been reported to show striatal hyperactivity for non-rewarding events, and this is proposed to reflect a diminished ability to disengage motivational circuitry for non-rewards, and which may strengthen the search for future reinforcements, such as drugs of abuse (Jager et al., 2013).
Towards A Better Understanding of Hypervigilance in Combat Veterans
Published in Military Behavioral Health, 2019
Research on attentional bias in PTSD suggests that patients with PTSD often direct most of their attention to threatening stimuli, therefore leaving little resources to other stimuli (Ashley et al., 2013; Buckley et al., 2000; Jacoby, 1991; Kimble et al., 2010). Attentional bias is comprised of two distinct types of attention: attentional facilitation, which includes enhanced awareness to threatening stimuli; and attentional interference, defined as difficulty disengaging from threat-related stimuli which, in turn, interferes with task performance and concentration (Pineles, Shipherd, Mostoufi, Abramovitz, & Yovel, 2009). Attentional bias has been assessed using different measures including the emotional Stroop task (Gotlib & McCann, 1984) the visual dot-probe task (MacLeod, Mathews & Tata, 1986) and the visual search task (Pineles, Shipherd, Welch, & Yovel, 2007).
Attentional Bias for Threat and Anxiety: The Role of Loneliness
Published in Psychiatry, 2020
Maryann Wei, Steven Roodenrys, Leonie Miller
ABT was assessed using a dot probe paradigm. Within a standard dot probe task, each trial begins with a fixation cross (500 ms) followed by the presentation of an emotional-neutral stimulus pair on opposite sides of the screen (500 ms). A probe (i.e. a dot) then quickly replaces either the emotional or neutral stimulus. Emotional-neutral trials are fully counterbalanced with regards to the position of the emotional stimulus (left or right), and whether the probe replaced the emotional or neutral stimulus. Participants are tasked to indicate the location of the probe as quickly as possible via a keyboard press (“E” for left, “I” for right). An attentional bias for the given class of emotional stimuli is typically inferred from the magnitude of the difference score between mean reaction times on incongruent trials (probes replace the emotional stimulus) and mean reaction times on congruent trials (probes replace the neutral stimulus).
Selective attentional bias for novel psychoactive substance (NPS) and expectancy-related stimuli among nonproblematic NPS users and never NPS users
Published in Journal of Substance Use, 2018
Ian P. Albery, Antony C. Moss, Nicola Davidson, S. Mba, Ursula Blaszko, Alexander P. Marchant
Theoretically, attentional bias for different substances is likely to reflect a dopaminergic response that increases with repeated use and becomes sensitized (Robinson & Berridge, 2001). This sensitization results in the substance becoming increasingly salient, developing intrinsic motivational properties (i.e., incentives for continued use), and ultimately leading to the development of craving. Consequently, the substance itself, and related cues, will grab attention, be perceived as “wanted,” and guide future behavior (Franken, 2003; Robinson & Berridge, 2001). This subjective “wanting” experience has already been identified in the mephedrone literature (Freeman et al., 2012). Given that attentional bias acts as a cognitive marker of this sensitization, a heightened bias toward NPS stimuli could be evident in NPS users.
Related Knowledge Centers
- ADDiction
- Anxiety
- Anxiety Disorder
- Chronic Pain
- Dysphoria
- Emotional Detachment
- Prosocial Behavior
- Depression
- Stimulus
- Subliminal Stimuli