Department of Psychology & Counselling, University of Chichester, College Lane, Chichester PO19 6PE, United Kingdom; Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Department of Psychiatry, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, Utrecht University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Departments of Developmental and Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Conscious Cogn. 2020 May;81:102930. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2020.102930. Epub 2020 Apr 16.
Cues that predict the future location of emotional stimuli may evoke an anticipatory form of automatic attentional bias. The reliability of this bias towards threat is uncertain: experimental design may need to be optimized or individual differences may simply be relatively noisy in the general population. The current study therefore aimed to determine the split-half reliability of the bias, in a design with fewer factors and more trials than in previous work. A sample of 63 participants was used for analysis, who performed the cued Visual Probe Task online, which aims to measure an anticipatory attentional bias. The overall bias towards threat was tested and split-half reliability was calculated over even and odd blocks. Results showed a significant bias towards threat and a reliability of around 0.7. The results support systematic individual differences in anticipatory attentional bias and demonstrate that RT-based bias scores, with online data collection, can be reliable.
预测情绪刺激未来位置的线索可能会引发一种预期的自动注意偏差。这种对威胁的偏差的可靠性是不确定的：实验设计可能需要优化，或者个体差异在一般人群中可能只是相对嘈杂。因此，本研究旨在确定该偏差的分半可靠性，设计中具有比以前工作更少的因素和更多的试验。分析使用了 63 名参与者的样本，他们在线执行提示视觉探测任务，该任务旨在测量预期的注意力偏差。测试了对威胁的整体偏差，并在偶数和奇数块中计算了分半可靠性。结果表明存在对威胁的显著偏差，可靠性约为 0.7。结果支持预期注意力偏差的系统性个体差异，并表明基于 RT 的偏差分数，结合在线数据收集，可以是可靠的。
