Literature DB >> 29314050

What does the dot-probe task measure? A reverse correlation analysis of electrocortical activity.

Nina N Thigpen1, L Forest Gruss1,2, Steven Garcia1, David R Herring3, Andreas Keil1.   

Abstract

The dot-probe task is considered a gold standard for assessing the intrinsic attentive selection of one of two lateralized visual cues, measured by the response time to a subsequent, lateralized response probe. However, this task has recently been associated with poor reliability and conflicting results. To resolve these discrepancies, we tested the underlying assumption of the dot-probe task-that fast probe responses index heightened cue selection-using an electrophysiological measure of selective attention. Specifically, we used a reverse correlation approach in combination with frequency-tagged steady-state visual potentials (ssVEPs). Twenty-one participants completed a modified dot-probe task in which each member of a pair of lateralized face cues, varying in emotional expression (angry-angry, neutral-angry, neutral-neutral), flickered at one of two frequencies (15 or 20 Hz), to evoke ssVEPs. One cue was then replaced by a response probe, and participants indicated the probe orientation (0° or 90°). We analyzed the ssVEP evoked by the cues as a function of response speed to the subsequent probe (i.e., a reverse correlation analysis). Electrophysiological measures of cue processing varied with probe hemifield location: Faster responses to left probes were associated with weak amplification of the preceding left cue, apparent only in a median split analysis. By contrast, faster responses to right probes were systematically and parametrically predicted by diminished visuocortical selection of the preceding right cue. Together, these findings highlight the poor validity of the dot-probe task, in terms of quantifying intrinsic, nondirected attentive selection irrespective of probe/cue location.
© 2018 Society for Psychophysiological Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EEG; anxiety; attention; emotion; face processing; hemispheric differences/laterality

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29314050      PMCID: PMC5940518          DOI: 10.1111/psyp.13058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychophysiology        ISSN: 0048-5772            Impact factor:   4.016


  87 in total

1.  Transient interference of right hemispheric function due to automatic emotional processing.

Authors:  K M Hartikainen; K H Ogawa; R T Knight
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 3.139

2.  Can the spotlight of attention be shaped like a doughnut? Evidence from steady-state visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  Matthias M Müller; Ronald Hübner
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2002-03

3.  Increases in alpha oscillatory power reflect an active retinotopic mechanism for distracter suppression during sustained visuospatial attention.

Authors:  Simon P Kelly; Edmund C Lalor; Richard B Reilly; John J Foxe
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Cue-invariant networks for figure and background processing in human visual cortex.

Authors:  L Gregory Appelbaum; Alex R Wade; Vladimir Y Vildavski; Mark W Pettet; Anthony M Norcia
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Color-selective attention need not be mediated by spatial attention.

Authors:  Søren K Andersen; Matthias M Müller; Steven A Hillyard
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-06-08       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 6.  What does the facial dot-probe task tell us about attentional processes in social anxiety? A systematic review.

Authors:  Trisha Bantin; Stephan Stevens; Alexander L Gerlach; Christiane Hermann
Journal:  J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry       Date:  2015-05-12

7.  Selective attention to stimulus location modulates the steady-state visual evoked potential.

Authors:  S T Morgan; J C Hansen; S A Hillyard
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1996-05-14       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  The N2pc component reliably captures attentional bias in social anxiety.

Authors:  Mario Reutter; Johannes Hewig; Matthias J Wieser; Roman Osinsky
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2017-01-22       Impact factor: 4.016

9.  Social vision: sustained perceptual enhancement of affective facial cues in social anxiety.

Authors:  Lisa M McTeague; Joshua R Shumen; Matthias J Wieser; Peter J Lang; Andreas Keil
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-09-09       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Developmental trajectories of regulating attentional selection over time.

Authors:  Sabine Heim; Andreas Keil
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-08-13
View more
  4 in total

1.  Context-dependent amygdala-prefrontal connectivity during the dot-probe task varies by irritability and attention bias to angry faces.

Authors:  Reut Naim; Simone P Haller; Julia O Linke; Allison Jaffe; Joel Stoddard; Matt Jones; Anita Harrewijn; Katharina Kircanski; Yair Bar-Haim; Melissa A Brotman
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 7.853

2.  Cognitive processing of emotional information during menstrual phases in women with and without postpartum depression: differential sensitivity to changes in gonadal steroids.

Authors:  Miki Bloch; Liat Helpman; Eva Gilboa-Schechtman; Inbar Fried-Zaig
Journal:  Arch Womens Ment Health       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 4.405

3.  Attention to a threat-related feature does not interfere with concurrent attentive feature selection.

Authors:  Maeve R Boylan; Mia N Kelly; Nina N Thigpen; Andreas Keil
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2019-01-21       Impact factor: 4.016

4.  The Hierarchical Relationship Between the Relational-Self and the Collective-Self During Attention Processing.

Authors:  Yingcan Zheng; Zilun Xiao; Xin Zhou; Zhuoya Yang
Journal:  Psychol Res Behav Manag       Date:  2022-03-05
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.