Attentional bias for emotional faces in generalized anxiety disorder
Attentional bias for emotional faces in generalized anxiety disorder
复制标题
DOI：
10.1348/014466599162845
复制
发表时间：
1999-09-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
de Bono, J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bradley, BP;Hogg, K;de Bono, J
目标。最近的认知理论提出，注意偏差导致或维持焦虑症。本研究有几个目的：(i)使用自然的、生态有效的刺激（即情绪面部表情）来调查广泛性焦虑障碍（GAD）中的这种偏见；（ii）通过检查对快乐和威胁面孔的偏见来测试情绪假设；（iii）评估注意偏倚的时间过程。因变量是一个注意偏倚指数，该指数来源于手工RTs对探针刺激的反应。实验共设4个自变量：1个组间变量（2个：GAD，对照组），3个组内变量：情绪面孔类型（2个：威胁，快乐），刺激持续时间（2个：500 ms， 1250 ms）和一半任务（2个：第一，第二）。注意偏倚采用点探测任务进行评估。这些刺激包括威胁性、快乐和中性面孔的照片，分别在500毫秒和1250毫秒的时间内呈现。与正常对照组相比，焦虑患者对威胁性面孔的警惕性要高于中性面孔。随着刺激持续时间的变化，这种效应没有显著变化。焦虑的患者对快乐的面孔也表现出更高的警觉性，但这只在任务的后半部分有意义。该研究不仅证实了广泛性焦虑症患者相对于对照组在选择性注意威胁方面表现出偏见，而且还证实了这种偏见对自然的、非语言的刺激也存在。由于对威胁和快乐面孔的注意偏见似乎是在不同的时间框架内发展起来的，不同的潜在机制可能是负责任的。
Objectives. Recent cognitive theories propose that attentional biases cause or maintain anxiety disorders. This study had several aims: (i) to investigate such biases in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) using naturalistic, ecologically valid stimuli, namely, emotional facial expressions; (ii) to test the emotionality hypothesis by examining biases for happy as well as threat faces; and (iii) to assess the time course of the attentional bias.Design. The dependent variable was an index of attentional bias derived from manual RTs to probe stimuli. There were four independent variables: one between subjects variable of group (2: GAD, control), and three within-subjects variables: Type of emotional face (2: threat, happy), Stimulus duration (2: 500 ms, 1250 ms) and Half of task (2: first, second).Method. Attentional bias was assessed with a dot probe task. The stimuli comprised photographs of threatening, happy and neutral faces, presented using two exposure durations: 500 ms and 1250 ms.Results. Anxious patients showed greater vigilance for threatening faces relative to neutral faces, compared with normal controls. This effect did not significantly vary as a function of stimulus duration. Anxious patients also showed enhanced vigilance for happy faces, but this was only significant in the second half of the task.Conclusions. The study confirmed not only that GAD patients show a bias in selective attention to threat, relative to controls, but also that this bias operates for naturalistic, non-verbal stimuli. As the attentional biases for threat and happy faces appeared to develop over a different time frame, different underlying mechanisms may be responsible.