Linear Ballistic Accumulator Modeling of Attentional Bias Modification Revealed Disturbed Evidence Accumulation of Negative Information by Explicit Instruction.

Keisuke Takano,Yuki Nishiguchi,Jiro Sakamoto,Yoshihiko Kunisato

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02447

Abstract

In recent years, several attentional bias modification (ABM) studies have been conducted. Previous studies have suggested that explicit instruction (i.e., informing participants of the contingency of stimuli) enhances the effect of ABM. However, the specific working mechanism has not been identified. This is partly because reaction time (RT) data are typically reduced to an attention bias score, which is a mere difference of RT between experimental and control conditions. This data reduction causes a loss of information, as RT reflects various cognitive processes at play while making a response or decision. To overcome this issue, the present study applied linear ballistic accumulator (LBA) modeling to the outcomes (RT measures) of explicitly guided (compared to standard) ABM. This computational modeling approach allowed us to dissociate RTs into distinct components that can be relevant for attentional bias, such as efficiency of information processing or prior knowledge of the task; this provides an understanding of the mechanism of action underlying explicitly guided ABM. The analyzed data were RT-observed in the dot-probe task, which was administered before and after 3-days of ABM training. Our main focus was on the changes in LBA components that would be induced by the training. Additionally, we analyzed in-session performances over the 3 days of training. The LBA analysis revealed a significant reduction in processing efficiency (i.e., drift rate) in the congruent condition, where the target probe is presented in the same location as a negative stimulus. This explains the reduction in the overall attentional bias score, suggesting that explicit ABM suppresses processing of negative stimuli. Moreover, the results suggest that explicitly guided ABM may influence prior knowledge of the target location in the training task and make participants prepared to respond to the task. These findings highlight the usefulness of LBA-based analysis to explore the underlying cognitive mechanisms in ABM, and indeed our analyses revealed the differences between the explicit and the standard ABM that could not be identified by traditional RT analysis or attentional bias scores.

Highlights

Selective attention to negative information or attentional bias to negative information has been repeatedly found in individuals with depression and anxiety and is considered a key factor in the development and maintenance of these psychopathologies (Mathews et al, 1997; Mathews and MacLeod, 2005; Bar-Haim et al, 2007; Ouimet et al, 2009; Cisler and Koster, 2010; Peckham et al, 2010; Koster et al, 2011)
As reported in Nishiguchi et al (2015), the results of ANOVA revealed that the attentional bias index in the explicit instruction group was significantly lower for the post-test session, d = 1.07, while there was no significant difference in the standard instruction group, d = 0.15 (F(1, 38) = 8.47, p < 0.01, for the interaction between time and group)
We examined the training effect of explicitly and standardly guided attentional bias modification (ABM) by using the linear ballistic accumulator (LBA) model

Summary

Introduction

Selective attention to negative information or attentional bias to negative information has been repeatedly found in individuals with depression and anxiety and is considered a key factor in the development and maintenance of these psychopathologies (Mathews et al, 1997; Mathews and MacLeod, 2005; Bar-Haim et al, 2007; Ouimet et al, 2009; Cisler and Koster, 2010; Peckham et al, 2010; Koster et al, 2011). MacLeod et al (2002) developed a procedure to modify attentional bias, namely attentional bias modification (ABM), which trains participants to decrease attention to negative information. The training procedure is directly adapted from the dot-probe task with the one exception that a target probe is always presented on the opposite side to a negative stimulus. This contingency is supposed to train participants to disengage their attention from negative materials and thereby to reduce attentional bias. MacLeod et al (2002) found that ABM suppressed negative attentional bias and reduced emotional reactivity to stress that was induced after training. Subsequent studies have replicated the finding that ABM successfully decreases stress reactivity, and give some support for a direct intervention effect upon symptoms of anxiety (Amir et al, 2008, 2009a; Li et al, 2008; See et al, 2009; Klumpp and Amir, 2010; Eldar et al, 2012)

Methods

Results

Conclusion