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.
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.
Authors: Patricia Ohrmann; Astrid Veronika Rauch; Jochen Bauer; Harald Kugel; Volker Arolt; Walter Heindel; Thomas Suslow Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2007-07-03 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Roma A Vasa; Daniel S Pine; Carrie L Masten; Meena Vythilingam; Carlos Collin; Dennis S Charney; Alexander Neumeister; Karin Mogg; Brendan P Bradley; Maggie Bruck; Christopher S Monk Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2009-03-06 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Jennifer Y F Lau; David Goldman; Beata Buzas; Stephen J Fromm; Amanda E Guyer; Colin Hodgkinson; Christopher S Monk; Eric E Nelson; Pei-Hong Shen; Daniel S Pine; Monique Ernst Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2008-10-31 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Christopher S Monk; Eva H Telzer; Karin Mogg; Brendan P Bradley; Xiaoqin Mai; Hugo M C Louro; Gang Chen; Erin B McClure-Tone; Monique Ernst; Daniel S Pine Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2008-05