Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129-B, 1018 WT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, WA 6009 Crawley, Australia.
School of Psychology, Curtin University, Kent St, WA 6102, Bentley, Australia.
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2020 Sep;68:101561. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2020.101561. Epub 2020 Feb 19.
Interpretation bias modification can affect stress reactivity, yet results have not been consistent. This inconsistency may be partly due to variability in the degree to which training procedures alter interpretation at a more automatic, rather than strategic, level of processing, and a mismatch in available resources between the training and the stress situation. We tested this possibility by investigating whether imposing a secondary cognitive load during interpretation bias modification would strengthen training-induced effects on both interpretation bias and emotional reactivity.
We trained 71 participants in a single session to interpret ambiguity either positively or negatively. Half of our participants did so while performing a cognitively demanding secondary task. We assessed the effects of these different training regimes on interpretation bias and both self-reported and physiological indices of stress reactivity.
Positive and negative interpretation bias modification resulted in training-congruent changes in interpretation bias. There were no group differences in self-reported stress reactivity, but positive interpretation training did improve recovery from stress as indexed by the heart rate measurement. Countering our hypothesis, the addition of cognitive load during the training increased neither the induced interpretive change nor its emotional impact.
Sample size was relatively small, though sufficient to detect medium sized effects.
Adding cognitive load to interpretation bias modification does not alter training-induced change in interpretation bias or emotional reactivity.
解释偏差修正可以影响应激反应，但结果并不一致。这种不一致可能部分是由于训练程序改变解释的程度在自动而非策略性的加工水平上存在差异，以及训练和应激情况之间可用资源不匹配。我们通过研究在解释偏差修正过程中施加次要认知负荷是否会增强训练对解释偏差和情绪反应的影响来检验这种可能性。
我们在一次会议上训练了 71 名参与者，让他们积极或消极地解释歧义。我们的一半参与者在执行认知要求高的次要任务时进行了训练。我们评估了这些不同训练方案对解释偏差以及自我报告和生理应激反应指标的影响。
积极和消极的解释偏差修正导致了与训练一致的解释偏差变化。自我报告的应激反应没有组间差异，但积极的解释训练确实改善了心率测量指标所反映的应激后恢复。与我们的假设相反，在训练过程中增加认知负荷既没有增加诱导的解释变化，也没有增加其情绪影响。
样本量相对较小，但足以检测到中等大小的效应。
在解释偏差修正中增加认知负荷不会改变训练引起的解释偏差或情绪反应的变化。
