Reut Naim1, Rany Abend1, Ilan Wald1, Sharon Eldar1, Ofir Levi1, Eyal Fruchter1, Karen Ginat1, Pinchas Halpern1, Maurice L Sipos1, Amy B Adler1, Paul D Bliese1, Phillip J Quartana1, Daniel S Pine1, Yair Bar-Haim1. 1. From the School of Psychological Sciences, the Sagol School of Neuroscience, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; the Division of Mental Health, Medical Corps, Israel Defense Forces, Israel; the Emergency Department, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; the Center for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Silver Spring, Md.; Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, Columbia; and the Intramural Research Program, NIMH, Bethesda, Md.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Threat monitoring facilitates survival by allowing one to efficiently and accurately detect potential threats. Traumatic events can disrupt healthy threat monitoring, inducing biased and unstable threat-related attention deployment. Recent research suggests that greater attention bias variability, that is, attention fluctuations alternating toward and away from threat, occurs in participants with PTSD relative to healthy comparison subjects who were either exposed or not exposed to traumatic events. The current study extends findings on attention bias variability in PTSD. METHOD: Previous measurement of attention bias variability was refined by employing a moving average technique. Analyses were conducted across seven independent data sets; in each, data on attention bias variability were collected by using variants of the dot-probe task. Trauma-related and anxiety symptoms were evaluated across samples by using structured psychiatric interviews and widely used self-report questionnaires, as specified for each sample. RESULTS: Analyses revealed consistent evidence of greater attention bias variability in patients with PTSD following various types of traumatic events than in healthy participants, participants with social anxiety disorder, and participants with acute stress disorder. Moreover, threat-related, and not positive, attention bias variability was correlated with PTSD severity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings carry possibilities for using attention bias variability as a specific cognitive marker of PTSD and for tailoring protocols for attention bias modification for this disorder.
OBJECTIVE: Threat monitoring facilitates survival by allowing one to efficiently and accurately detect potential threats. Traumatic events can disrupt healthy threat monitoring, inducing biased and unstable threat-related attention deployment. Recent research suggests that greater attention bias variability, that is, attention fluctuations alternating toward and away from threat, occurs in participants with PTSD relative to healthy comparison subjects who were either exposed or not exposed to traumatic events. The current study extends findings on attention bias variability in PTSD. METHOD: Previous measurement of attention bias variability was refined by employing a moving average technique. Analyses were conducted across seven independent data sets; in each, data on attention bias variability were collected by using variants of the dot-probe task. Trauma-related and anxiety symptoms were evaluated across samples by using structured psychiatric interviews and widely used self-report questionnaires, as specified for each sample. RESULTS: Analyses revealed consistent evidence of greater attention bias variability in patients with PTSD following various types of traumatic events than in healthy participants, participants with social anxiety disorder, and participants with acute stress disorder. Moreover, threat-related, and not positive, attention bias variability was correlated with PTSD severity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings carry possibilities for using attention bias variability as a specific cognitive marker of PTSD and for tailoring protocols for attention bias modification for this disorder.
Authors: Daniel S Pine; Karin Mogg; Brendan P Bradley; LeeAnne Montgomery; Christopher S Monk; Erin McClure; Amanda E Guyer; Monique Ernst; Dennis S Charney; Joan Kaufman Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Xenia Protopopescu; Hong Pan; Oliver Tuescher; Marylene Cloitre; Martin Goldstein; Wolfgang Engelien; Jane Epstein; Yihong Yang; Jack Gorman; Joseph LeDoux; David Silbersweig; Emily Stern Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Belinda J Liddell; Kerri J Brown; Andrew H Kemp; Matthew J Barton; Pritha Das; Anthony Peduto; Evian Gordon; Leanne M Williams Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Vanessa M Brown; Lusha Zhu; John M Wang; B Christopher Frueh; Brooks King-Casas; Pearl H Chiu Journal: Elife Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Katharina Kircanski; Lauren K White; Wan-Ling Tseng; Jillian Lee Wiggins; Heather R Frank; Stefanie Sequeira; Susan Zhang; Rany Abend; Kenneth E Towbin; Argyris Stringaris; Daniel S Pine; Ellen Leibenluft; Melissa A Brotman Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Amy Badura-Brack; Timothy J McDermott; Katherine M Becker; Tara J Ryan; Maya M Khanna; Daniel S Pine; Yair Bar-Haim; Elizabeth Heinrichs-Graham; Tony W Wilson Journal: Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 2.376
Authors: Lynnette A Averill; Christopher L Averill; Benjamin Kelmendi; Chadi G Abdallah; Steven M Southwick Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2018-03-28 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Amit Lazarov; Benjamin Suarez-Jimenez; Rany Abend; Reut Naim; Erel Shvil; Liat Helpman; Xi Zhu; Santiago Papini; Ariel Duroski; Rony Rom; Franklin R Schneier; Daniel S Pine; Yair Bar-Haim; Yuval Neria Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Rany Abend; Leone de Voogd; Elske Salemink; Reinout W Wiers; Koraly Pérez-Edgar; Amanda Fitzgerald; Lauren K White; Giovanni A Salum; Jie He; Wendy K Silverman; Jeremy W Pettit; Daniel S Pine; Yair Bar-Haim Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Lauren K White; Jennifer C Britton; Stefanie Sequeira; Emily G Ronkin; Gang Chen; Yair Bar-Haim; Tomer Shechner; Monique Ernst; Nathan A Fox; Ellen Leibenluft; Daniel S Pine Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 6.556