Literature DB >> 27819442

Was that a threat? Attentional biases by signals of threat.

Daniel Preciado1, Jaap Munneke2, Jan Theeuwes1.   

Abstract

The present study rigorously tests whether an arbitrary stimulus that signals threat affects attentional selection and perception. Thirty-four volunteers completed a spatial-emotional cueing paradigm to examine how perceptual sensitivity (d') and response times (RTs) were affected by a threatening stimulus. On each side of fixation, 2 colored circles were presented as cues, followed by 2 Gabor patches, 1 of which was tilted and served as target. The color of 1 of the cues was paired with an electric shock, while others remained neutral. The target could be presented at the location of the threat-associated cue (Valid), at the opposite side (Invalid), or following neutral cues. Stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between cue and target was either 100 ms or 1,000 ms. Results showed increased perceptual sensitivity (d') and faster RTs for targets appearing at the Valid location relative to the Invalidly cued location, suggesting that immediately after cue presentation, attention was captured by the threat-associated cue. Crucially, following this initial exogenous capture, there was also enhanced perceptual sensitivity at the long SOA, suggesting that attention lingered volitionally at the location that previously contained the threat-associated stimulus. The current results show an effect of threatening stimuli on perceptual sensitivity, providing unequivocal evidence that threatening stimuli modulate the efficacy of sensory processing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27819442     DOI: 10.1037/emo0000246

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emotion        ISSN: 1528-3542


  8 in total

1.  Acute threat enhances perceptual sensitivity without affecting the decision criterion.

Authors:  Lycia D de Voogd; Eline Hagenberg; Ying Joey Zhou; Floris P de Lange; Karin Roelofs
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  Increased attention allocation to socially threatening faces in social anxiety disorder: A replication study.

Authors:  Amit Lazarov; Dana Basel; Sarah Dolan; Daniel G Dillon; Diego A Pizzagalli; Franklin R Schneier
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 6.533

3.  To look or not to look? Reward, selection history, and oculomotor guidance.

Authors:  Daniel Preciado; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Statistical regularities bias overt attention.

Authors:  Benchi Wang; Iliana Samara; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Auditory and cross-modal attentional bias toward positive natural sounds: Behavioral and ERP evidence.

Authors:  Yanmei Wang; Zhenwei Tang; Xiaoxuan Zhang; Libing Yang
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 3.473

6.  Mixed signals: The effect of conflicting reward- and goal-driven biases on selective attention.

Authors:  Daniel Preciado; Jaap Munneke; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 7.  Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention.

Authors:  Michel Failing; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-04

8.  Learned prioritization yields attentional biases through selection history.

Authors:  Jaap Munneke; Jennifer E Corbett; Erik van der Burg
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 2.199

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.