Everaert Jonas, Mogoaşe Cristina, David Daniel, Koster Ernst H W
Ghent University, Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Babeş-Bolyai University, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Republicii Street 37, 400015 Cluj-Napoca, Cluj, Romania; Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2015 Dec;49(Pt A):5-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.10.011. Epub 2014 Nov 4.
Across three experiments we investigated transfer effects of single-session attention bias modification via dot-probe training.
In experiment 1, participants received training either toward or away from negative images or no-training, and transfer to an affective task-switching task was examined. In two other experiments, participants were trained to orient attention toward either positive or negative words (experiment 2a) or facial expressions (experiment 2b), and transfer to an interpretation bias task was examined.
In all experiments, the dot-probe training procedure did not effectively modify biases in attention allocation at the training condition level, but produced a large variability in individual attention bias acquisition within and across conditions. Individual differences in pre-training attention bias and attention bias acquisition were not related to performance on the affective task-switching task or the interpretation tasks.
The present investigations are limited by the lack of effectiveness of ABM at the condition level, the order in which transfer tasks were administered, and the restricted range of affective symptoms that could moderate training and transfer effects.
The findings from three experiments provided no evidence for single-session dot-probe ABM procedures to effectively manipulate attention bias toward negative, away from negative, or toward positive stimuli at a training condition level. At the individual differences level of analysis, again no evidence was found for transfer of attention training. The observations invite further empirical scrutiny into factors that moderate attentional plasticity in response to dot-probe ABM procedures to optimize the conditions for effective implementation and transfer of training.
我们通过三项实验研究了单次会话注意力偏差修正(通过点探测训练)的迁移效应。
在实验1中,参与者接受朝向或远离负面图像的训练或不接受训练,并考察其向情感任务切换任务的迁移情况。在另外两项实验中,参与者被训练将注意力导向正面或负面词汇(实验2a)或面部表情(实验2b),并考察其向解释偏差任务的迁移情况。
在所有实验中,点探测训练程序在训练条件层面并未有效修正注意力分配偏差,但在不同条件下个体注意力偏差的习得产生了很大变异性。训练前注意力偏差和注意力偏差习得的个体差异与情感任务切换任务或解释任务的表现无关。
本研究受到注意力偏差修正(ABM)在条件层面缺乏有效性、迁移任务的实施顺序以及可能调节训练和迁移效应的情感症状范围有限的限制。
三项实验的结果均未提供证据表明单次会话点探测ABM程序能在训练条件层面有效操纵对负面、远离负面或正面刺激的注意力偏差。在个体差异分析层面,同样未发现注意力训练迁移的证据。这些观察结果促使对调节点探测ABM程序反应中注意力可塑性的因素进行进一步实证研究,以优化有效实施和训练迁移的条件。