Efficacy of attention bias modification using threat and appetitive stimuli: a meta-analytic review.
Efficacy of attention bias modification using threat and appetitive stimuli: a meta-analytic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.beth.2012.01.002
复制
发表时间：
2012-12
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Hofmann SG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Beard C;Sawyer AT;Hofmann SG
注意偏倚修正（ABM）协议旨在改变多种病理形式下的注意偏倚。我们的目标是在广泛的样本和心理问题中进行ABM的效应量分析。我们使用PubMed、PsycInfo和作者搜索进行了文献检索，以确定检验ABM对注意力和主观体验影响的随机研究。我们确定了37项研究（41项实验），共计2135名参与者，他们被随机分配到中性、积极、威胁或食欲刺激或对照条件下进行训练。注意偏倚变化的效应量估计在中性与威胁比较（g =1.06）、中性与食欲比较（g =1.41）和中性与对照比较（g = 0.80）中较大，在积极与对照比较中较小（g =0.24）。ABM对注意偏倚的影响受刺激类型（文字vs图片）和样本特征（健康vs高症状）的调节。挑战后结果中，ABM对主观体验的效应值为0.03 ~ 0.60，治疗后结果为- 0.31 ~ 0.51，并受训练次数、刺激类型和刺激方向（上/下vs左/右）的调节。故障安全N计算表明，对于训练对注意偏差的影响，效应大小估计是稳健的，但对于主观体验的影响则不是。使用威胁刺激的ABM研究在不同的比较条件下对注意偏倚产生显著影响，而使用食欲刺激的ABM研究仅在比较食欲条件和中性条件时才会对注意偏倚产生影响。当使用威胁刺激时，ABM对注意偏倚的影响是适度的。需要进一步的研究来确定当使用食欲刺激和影响主观体验时，这些效应是否也同样强大。
Attention Bias Modification (ABM) protocols aim to modify attentional biases underlying many forms of pathology. Our objective was to conduct an effect size analysis of ABM across a wide range of samples and psychological problems. We conducted a literature search using PubMed, PsycInfo, and author searches to identify randomized studies that examined the effects of ABM on attention and subjective experiences. We identified 37 studies (41 experiments) totaling 2,135 participants who were randomized to training toward neutral, positive, threat, or appetitive stimuli or to a control condition. The effect size estimate for changes in attentional bias was large for the neutral vs. threat comparisons (g =1.06), neutral vs. appetitive (g =1.41), and neutral vs. control comparisons (g = 0.80), and small for positive vs. control (g =0.24). The effects of ABM on attention bias were moderated by stimulus type (words vs pictures) and sample characteristics (healthy vs. high symptomatology). Effect sizes of ABM on subjective experiences ranged from 0.03 to 0.60 for post-challenge outcomes, −0.31 to 0.51 for post-treatment, and were moderated by number of training sessions, stimulus type and stimulus orientation (top/bottom vs. left/right). Fail-safe N calculations suggested that the effect size estimates were robust for the training effects on attentional biases, but not for the effect on subjective experiences. ABM studies using threat stimuli produced significant effects on attention bias across comparison conditions, whereas appetitive stimuli produced changes in attention only when comparing appetitive vs. neutral conditions. ABM has a moderate and robust effect on attention bias when using threat stimuli. Further studies are needed to determine whether these effects are also robust when using appetitive stimuli and for affecting subjective experiences.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/j.jbtep.2010.02.004
发表时间：
2010-09-01
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Baert, Saskia;De Raedt, Rudi;Koster, Ernst H. W.
通讯作者：
Koster, Ernst H. W.
影响因子：
10.6
作者：
Browning, Michael;Holmes, Emily A.;Harmer, Catherine J.
通讯作者：
Harmer, Catherine J.
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Beard, Courtney;Amir, Nader
通讯作者：
Amir, Nader
影响因子：
10.6
作者：
Fox, Elaine;Cahill, Shanna;Zougkou, Konstantina
通讯作者：
Zougkou, Konstantina
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Beevers, Christopher G.;Gibb, Brandon E.;Miller, Ivan W.
通讯作者：
Miller, Ivan W.