Top

Gepubliceerd in:

28-05-2021 | Original Article

Implementation of the diffusion model on dot-probe task performance in children with behavioral inhibition

Auteurs: Shane Wise, Cynthia Huang-Pollock, Koraly Pérez-Edgar

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2022

Abstract

Attentional bias to threat, the process of preferentially attending to potentially threatening environmental stimuli over neutral stimuli, is positively associated with behavioral inhibition (BI) and trait anxiety. However, the most used measure of attentional bias to threat, the dot-probe task, has been criticized for demonstrating poor reliability. The present study aimed to assess whether utilizing a sequential sampling model to describe performance could detect adequate test–retest reliability for the dot-probe task, demonstrate stronger cueing effects, and improve the association with neural signals of early attention. One hundred and twenty children aged 9–12 years completed the dot-probe task twice. During the second administration, event-related potentials (ERPs) were obtained as time-sensitive neural markers of attention. BI was not associated with traditional or diffusion model measures of performance. Traditional and diffusion model measures of performance were also not associated with N1, P2, or N2 ERP amplitude. There were main effects of Visit, in which RTs were faster and standard deviation of RT smaller during the second administration due to an increase in drift rate and a decrease in non-decision time. The traditional RT bias score (r = 0.06) and bias scores formed via diffusion model parameters (all r’s < 0.40) all demonstrated poor reliability. Results confirm recommendations to move away from using the dot-probe task as the primary or sole index of attentional bias.

vorige artikel Threat-relevant stimuli cannot be better detected by preschoolers in an inattentional blindness task

volgende artikel Disentangling interoceptive abilities in alexithymia

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

The information used to judge the orientation of the target is also influenced by learned factors that are independent of the perceptual qualities of the target itself (e.g. including learning to suppress distractors, see Sewell et al. (2018)). This latter process, however, is less likely to be observed in a task like the dot-probe, where explicit distractors are not present.

Results did not change when a cutoff of < 300 ms was applied to better approximate cutoffs used for diffusion modeling.

Because the CDF plots suggested the presence of some misfits, 1000 datasets were subsequently simulated. Participants who exhibited a lower model fit (defined as < 10% quantile of the distribution of p values) for any of the four conditions were removed from analysis. This resulted in a reduced N = 57 (22 BI, 34 Controls). CDF plots generated from the remaining participants demonstrated improved model fit, but primary results did not change. See Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Fig. 1.

A Cue (3: Neutral, Threat Congruent, Threat Incongruent) Visit (2) BI (2) GLM replicated these effects. However, this GLM identified an additional Visit (2) Cue (3) interaction on Ter (F(2, 236) = 5.17, p = 0.006, η² = 0.042) in which the Neutral cue trials did not differ between visit 1 and 2 as much as the task condition cue trials did.

Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., & Glickman, S. (2005). Attentional bias in anxiety: A behavioral and ERP study. Brain and Cognition, 59(1), 11–22. CrossRefPubMed

Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 1.CrossRefPubMed

Bishop, G., Spence, S. H., & McDonald, C. (2003). Can parents and teachers provide a reliable and valid report of behavioral inhibition? Child Development, 74(6), 1899–1917. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00645.xCrossRefPubMed

Blackford, J. U., & Pine, D. S. (2012). Neural substrates of childhood anxiety disorders: a review of neuroimaging findings. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 21(3), 501–525.CrossRef

Carretié, L., Mercado, F., Tapia, M., & Hinojosa, J. A. (2001). Emotion, attention, and the ‘negativity bias’, studied through event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 41(1), 75–85.CrossRefPubMed

Chronis-Tuscano, A., Degnan, K. A., Pine, D. S., Perez-Edgar, K., Henderson, H. A., Diaz, Y., et al. (2009). Stable early maternal report of behavioral inhibition predicts lifetime social anxiety disorder in adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(9), 928–935. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e3181ae09dfCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. H. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36(1), 28–71.CrossRefPubMed

Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. H. (1999). Top-down attentional guidance based on implicit learning of visual covariation. Psychological Science, 10(4), 360–365.CrossRef

Coll, C. G., Kagan, J., & Reznick, J. S. (1984). Behavioral inhibition in young children. Child Development, 55, 1005–1019.CrossRef

Ehrenreich, J. T., & Gross, A. M. (2002). Biased attentional behavior in childhood anxiety: A review of theory and current empirical investigation. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(7), 991–1008.CrossRefPubMed

Eimer, M., & Holmes, A. (2007). Event-related brain potential correlates of emotional face processing. Neuropsychologia, 45(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.04.022CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Eldar, S., Yankelevitch, R., Lamy, D., & Bar-Haim, Y. (2010). Enhanced neural reactivity and selective attention to threat in anxiety. Biological Psychology, 85(2), 252–257.CrossRefPubMed

Enkavi, A. Z., Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Mazza, G. L., MacKinnon, D. P., Marsch, L. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2019). Large-scale analysis of test–retest reliabilities of self-regulation measures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(12), 5472–5477.CrossRef

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146CrossRefPubMed

Fu, X., & Pérez-Edgar, K. (2019). Threat-related attention bias in socioemotional development: A critical review and methodological considerations. Developmental Review, 51, 31–57.CrossRefPubMed

Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1983). A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55(4), 468–484.CrossRefPubMed

Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166–1186.CrossRefPubMed

Henderson, H. A. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of cognitive control and the regulation of shyness in children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640903526538CrossRefPubMed

Huang-Pollock, C., & Nigg, J. T. (2003). Searching for the attention deficit in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: the case of visuospatial orienting. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(6), 801–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7358(03)00073-4CrossRefPubMed

Hudson, J. L., Dodd, H. F., Lyneham, H. J., & Bovopoulous, N. (2011). Temperament and family environment in the development of anxiety disorder: Two-year follow-up. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50(12), 1255–1264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2011.09.009CrossRefPubMed

Kanske, P., & Kotz, S. A. (2007). Concreteness in emotional words: ERP evidence from a hemifield study. Brain Research, 1148, 138–148.CrossRefPubMed

Kanske, P., Plitschka, J., & Kotz, S. A. (2011). Attentional orienting towards emotion: P2 and N400 ERP effects. Neuropsychologia, 49(11), 3121–3129.CrossRefPubMed

Kappenman, E. S., Farrens, J. L., Luck, S. J., & Proudfit, G. H. (2014). Behavioral and ERP measures of attentional bias to threat in the dot-probe task: Poor reliability and lack of correlation with anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1368.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kunar, M. A., & Wolfe, J. M. (2011). Target absent trials in configural contextual cuing. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 73(7), 2077–2091. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0164-0CrossRef

Kunar, M. A., Flusberg, S., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2007). Does contextual cuing guide the deployment of attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 33(4), 816–828. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.4.816CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lamm, C., Walker, O. L., Degnan, K. A., Henderson, H. A., Pine, D. S., McDermott, J. M., & Fox, N. A. (2014). Cognitive control moderates early childhood temperament in predicting social behavior in 7-year-old children: an ERP study. Developmental Science, 17(5), 667–681.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Leite, F. P., & Ratcliff, R. (2011). What cognitive processes drive response biases? A diffusion model analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(7), 651–687.

Lerche, V., & Voss, A. (2017). Retest reliability of the parameters of the Ratcliff diffusion model. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 81(3), 629–652.CrossRefPubMed

Lisk, S., Vaswani, A., Linetzky, M., Bar-Haim, Y., & Lau, J. Y. F. (2019). Systematic review and meta-analysis: Eye-tracking of attention to threat in child and adolescent anxiety. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.06.006CrossRefPubMed

Luck, S. J., Woodman, G. F., & Vogel, E. K. (2000). Event-related potential studies of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01545-xCrossRefPubMed

Molloy, A., & Anderson, P. L. (2020). Evaluating the reliability of attention bias and attention bias variability measures in the dot-probe task among people with social anxiety disorder. Psychological Assessment, 32(9), 883.CrossRefPubMed

Morales, S., Taber-Thomas, B. C., & Pérez-Edgar, K. E. (2017). Patterns of attention to threat across tasks in behaviorally inhibited children at risk for anxiety. Developmental Science, 20(2), e12391.CrossRef

Mueller, E. M., Hofmann, S. G., Santesso, D. L., Meuret, A. E., Bitran, S., & Pizzagalli, D. A. (2009). Electrophysiological evidence of attentional biases in social anxiety disorder. Psychological Medicine, 39(7), 1141–1152. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291708004820CrossRefPubMed

Mulder, M. J., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ratcliff, R., Boekel, W., & Forstmann, B. U. (2012). Bias in the brain: A diffusion model analysis of prior probability and potential payoff. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(7), 2335–2343.CrossRefPubMed

Pérez-Edgar, K., Reeb-Sutherland, B. C., McDermott, J. M., White, L. K., Henderson, H. A., Degnan, K. A., et al. (2011). Attention biases to threat link behavioral inhibition to social withdrawal over time in very young children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(6), 885–895.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Peter, J. P., Churchill, G. A., & Brown, T. J. (1993). Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 655–662. https://doi.org/10.1086/209329CrossRef

Price, R. B., Rosen, D., Siegle, G. J., Ladouceur, C. D., Tang, K., Allen, K. B., et al. (2016). From anxious youth to depressed adolescents: Prospective prediction of 2-year depression symptoms via attentional bias measures. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(2), 267.CrossRefPubMed

Price, R. B., Brown, V., & Siegle, G. J. (2019). Computational modeling applied to the dot-probe task yields improved reliability and mechanistic insights. Biological Psychiatry, 85(7), 606–612.CrossRefPubMed

Ratcliff, R., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2002). Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3), 438–481.CrossRefPubMed

Rodebaugh, T. L., Scullin, R. B., Langer, J. K., Dixon, D. J., Huppert, J. D., Bernstein, A., et al. (2016). Unreliability as a threat to understanding psychopathology: The cautionary tale of attentional bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(6), 840.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rossignol, M., Campanella, S., Bissot, C., & Philippot, P. (2013). Fear of negative evaluation and attentional bias for facial expressions: An event-related study. Brain and Cognition, 82(3), 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2013.05.008CrossRefPubMed

Ross, D. A., Richler, J. J., & Gauthier, I. (2015). Reliability of composite-task measurements of holistic face processing. Behavior Research Methods, 47(3), 736–743.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Schankin, A., & Schubo, A. (2009). Cognitive processes facilitated by contextual cueing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 46(3), 668–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00807.xCrossRefPubMed

Schankin, A., & Schubo, A. (2010). Contextual cueing effects despite spatially cued target locations. Psychophysiology, 47(4), 717–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.00979.xCrossRefPubMed

Schwartz, C. E., Snidman, N., & Kagan, J. (1999). Adolescent social anxiety as an outcome of inhibited temperament in childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(8), 1008–1015. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199908000-00017CrossRefPubMed

Sewell, D. K., Colagiuri, B., & Livesey, E. J. (2018). Response time modeling reveals multiple contextual cuing mechanisms. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25(5), 1644–1665. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1364-yCrossRefPubMed

Taylor, M. J. (2002). Non-spatial attentional effects on P1. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113(12), 1903–1908.CrossRefPubMed

Thai, N., Taber-Thomas, B. C., & Pérez-Edgar, K. E. (2016). Neural correlates of attention biases, behavioral inhibition, and social anxiety in children: An ERP study. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 200–210.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Victeur, Q., Huguet, P., & Silvert, L. (2020). Attentional allocation to task-irrelevant fearful faces is not automatic: Experimental evidence for the conditional hypothesis of emotional selection. Cognition and Emotion, 34(2), 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1622512CrossRefPubMed

Vossel, S., Mathys, C., Daunizeau, J., Bauer, M., Driver, J., Friston, K. J., & Stephan, K. E. (2014). Spatial attention, precision, and bayesian inference: A study of saccadic response speed. Cerebral Cortex, 24(6), 1436–1450. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs418CrossRefPubMed

Voss, A., Nagler, M., & Lerche, V. (2013). Diffusion models in experimental psychology: A practical introduction. Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 385.CrossRefPubMed

Waechter, S., & Stolz, J. A. (2015). Trait anxiety, state anxiety, and attentional bias to threat: Assessing the psychometric properties of response time measures. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39(4), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-015-9670-zCrossRef

Waechter, S., Nelson, A. L., Wright, C., Hyatt, A., & Oakman, J. (2014). Measuring attentional bias to threat: Reliability of dot probe and eye movement indices. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 38(3), 313–333.CrossRef

Weigard, A., & Huang-Pollock, C. L. (2014). A diffusion modeling approach to understanding contextual cueing effects in children with ADHD. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(12), 1336–1344. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12250CrossRefPubMed

White, C. N., & Poldrack, R. A. (2014). Decomposing bias in different types of simple decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 385.PubMed

White, C. N., Ratcliff, R., Vasey, M. W., & McKoon, G. (2010). Anxiety enhances threat processing without competition among multiple inputs: A diffusion model analysis. Emotion, 10(5), 662.CrossRefPubMed

White, C. N., Skokin, K., Carlos, B., & Weaver, A. (2016). Using decision models to decompose anxiety-related bias in threat classification. Emotion, 16(2), 196.CrossRefPubMed

Zhao, G., Liu, Q., Jiao, J., Zhou, P. L., Li, H., & Sun, H. J. (2012). Dual-state modulation of the contextual cueing effect: Evidence from eye movement recordings. Journal of Vision, 12(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1167/12.6.11CrossRef

Titel: Implementation of the diffusion model on dot-probe task performance in children with behavioral inhibition
Auteurs: Shane Wise
Cynthia Huang-Pollock
Koraly Pérez-Edgar
Publicatiedatum: 28-05-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01532-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2022

Learning of across- and within-task contingencies modulates partial-repetition costs in dual-tasking

Anticipating the magnitude of response outcomes can induce a potentiation effect for manipulable objects

Meditation affects word recognition of meditation novices

Correction to: In Medio Stat Virtus: intermediate levels of mind wandering improve episodic memory encoding in a virtual environment

The impact of capitalized German words on lexical access

In Colore Veritas? Color effects on the speed and accuracy of true/false responses