Bowler J O, Hoppitt L, Illingworth J, Dalgleish T, Ononaiye M, Perez-Olivas G, Mackintosh B
School of Psychology, University of East Anglia, UK.
Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK.
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2017 Mar;54:239-246. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.08.011. Epub 2016 Aug 26.
It is well established that attention bias and interpretation bias each have a key role in the development and continuation of anxiety. How the biases may interact with one another in anxiety is, however, poorly understood. Using cognitive bias modification techniques, the present study examined whether training a more positive interpretation bias or attention bias resulted in transfer of effects to the untrained cognitive domain. Differences in anxiety reactivity to a real-world stressor were also assessed.
Ninety-seven first year undergraduates who had self-reported anxiety were allocated to one of four groups: attention bias training (n = 24), interpretation bias training (n = 26), control task training (n = 25) and no training (n = 22). Training was computer-based and comprised eight sessions over four weeks. Baseline and follow-up measures of attention and interpretation bias, anxiety and depression were taken.
A significant reduction in threat-related attention bias and an increase in positive interpretation bias occurred in the attention bias training group. The interpretation bias training group did not exhibit a significant change in attention bias, only interpretation bias. The effect of attention bias training on interpretation bias was significant as compared with the two control groups. There were no effects on self-report measures.
The extent to which interpretive training can modify attentional processing remains unclear.
Findings support the idea that attentional training might have broad cognitive consequences, impacting downstream on interpretive bias. However, they do not fully support a common mechanism hypothesis, as interpretive training did not impact on attentional bias.
注意力偏差和解释偏差在焦虑症的发生和持续发展过程中均起着关键作用,这一点已得到充分证实。然而,人们对这些偏差在焦虑症中如何相互作用却知之甚少。本研究运用认知偏差矫正技术,探究训练更积极的解释偏差或注意力偏差是否会导致效应转移至未训练的认知领域。同时,还评估了对现实世界应激源的焦虑反应差异。
97名自我报告有焦虑症状的大学一年级学生被分配到四组之一:注意力偏差训练组(n = 24)、解释偏差训练组(n = 26)、控制任务训练组(n = 25)和无训练组(n = 22)。训练基于计算机,为期四周,共八节课程。对注意力和解释偏差、焦虑和抑郁进行基线和随访测量。
注意力偏差训练组中,与威胁相关的注意力偏差显著降低,积极解释偏差增加。解释偏差训练组仅解释偏差有显著变化,注意力偏差无显著变化。与两个对照组相比,注意力偏差训练对解释偏差的影响显著。对自我报告测量无影响。
解释性训练能够改变注意力加工的程度尚不清楚。
研究结果支持注意力训练可能具有广泛认知后果,对下游的解释偏差产生影响这一观点。然而,由于解释性训练并未影响注意力偏差,因此并不完全支持共同机制假说。