Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Alcohol-related attentional bias in a gaze cont...

Electronic data

  • gaze contingency (021018)

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Addictive Behaviors. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Addictive Behaviors, 90, 2019 DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh2018.11.034

    Accepted author manuscript, 470 KB, PDF document

    Embargo ends: 24/05/20

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Alcohol-related attentional bias in a gaze contingency task: Comparing appetitive and non-appetitive cues

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

Alcohol-related attentional bias in a gaze contingency task : Comparing appetitive and non-appetitive cues. / Qureshi, A.; Monk, R.L.; Pennington, C.R.; Wilcockson, T.D.W.; Heim, D.

In: Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 90, 03.2019, p. 312-317.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{76dd1d4a2c9e428092f3381f1770450d,
title = "Alcohol-related attentional bias in a gaze contingency task: Comparing appetitive and non-appetitive cues",
abstract = "Background: Non-problem drinkers attend automatically to alcohol-related cues compared to non-alcohol related cues on tests of inhibitory control. Moreover, attentional bias for alcohol-related cues varies between problem and non-problem drinkers. Aim: To examine attentional bias towards alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive cues between problem and non-problem drinkers. Method: Forty-one university students (9 male, 32 female; Mage = 21.50) completed an eye-tracking gaze contingency paradigm, measuring the number of times participants looked at peripherally and centrally located stimuli (break frequency) when instructed to maintain focus on a target object. Stimuli consisted of appetitive alcohol-related (e.g., wine), appetitive non-alcohol-related (e.g., cola) and non-appetitive (e.g., fabric softener) stimuli. Participants were split using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) into non-problem (M AUDIT = 3.86) and problematic drinkers (M AUDIT = 11.59). Results: Problematic drinkers had higher break frequencies towards peripheral appetitive stimuli than towards non-appetitive stimuli, while break frequency was equivalent between appetitive cues presented centrally (alcohol and non-alcohol-related). In contrast, there were no differences in break frequency across stimuli type or cue presentation location (central or peripheral) for non-problem drinkers. Conclusion: In contrast to non-problem drinkers, people displaying more problematic consumption practices may find it more difficult to inhibit eye movements towards appetitive stimuli, particularly when in peripheral vision. This may suggest that attentional biases, as measured in terms of overt eye movements, in problem drinkers may be most powerful when the alcoholic and appetitive stimuli are not directly in field of view. An uncertainty reduction process in the allocation of attention to appetitive cues may help explain the patterns of results observed. {\circledC} 2018",
keywords = "Alcohol, Appetitive, Attentional bias, Gaze contingency, Inhibitory control",
author = "A. Qureshi and R.L. Monk and C.R. Pennington and T.D.W. Wilcockson and D. Heim",
note = "This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Addictive Behaviors. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Addictive Behaviors, 90, 2019 DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh2018.11.034",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.11.034",
language = "English",
volume = "90",
pages = "312--317",
journal = "Addictive Behaviors",
issn = "0306-4603",
publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Alcohol-related attentional bias in a gaze contingency task

T2 - Comparing appetitive and non-appetitive cues

AU - Qureshi, A.

AU - Monk, R.L.

AU - Pennington, C.R.

AU - Wilcockson, T.D.W.

AU - Heim, D.

N1 - This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Addictive Behaviors. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Addictive Behaviors, 90, 2019 DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh2018.11.034

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - Background: Non-problem drinkers attend automatically to alcohol-related cues compared to non-alcohol related cues on tests of inhibitory control. Moreover, attentional bias for alcohol-related cues varies between problem and non-problem drinkers. Aim: To examine attentional bias towards alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive cues between problem and non-problem drinkers. Method: Forty-one university students (9 male, 32 female; Mage = 21.50) completed an eye-tracking gaze contingency paradigm, measuring the number of times participants looked at peripherally and centrally located stimuli (break frequency) when instructed to maintain focus on a target object. Stimuli consisted of appetitive alcohol-related (e.g., wine), appetitive non-alcohol-related (e.g., cola) and non-appetitive (e.g., fabric softener) stimuli. Participants were split using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) into non-problem (M AUDIT = 3.86) and problematic drinkers (M AUDIT = 11.59). Results: Problematic drinkers had higher break frequencies towards peripheral appetitive stimuli than towards non-appetitive stimuli, while break frequency was equivalent between appetitive cues presented centrally (alcohol and non-alcohol-related). In contrast, there were no differences in break frequency across stimuli type or cue presentation location (central or peripheral) for non-problem drinkers. Conclusion: In contrast to non-problem drinkers, people displaying more problematic consumption practices may find it more difficult to inhibit eye movements towards appetitive stimuli, particularly when in peripheral vision. This may suggest that attentional biases, as measured in terms of overt eye movements, in problem drinkers may be most powerful when the alcoholic and appetitive stimuli are not directly in field of view. An uncertainty reduction process in the allocation of attention to appetitive cues may help explain the patterns of results observed. © 2018

AB - Background: Non-problem drinkers attend automatically to alcohol-related cues compared to non-alcohol related cues on tests of inhibitory control. Moreover, attentional bias for alcohol-related cues varies between problem and non-problem drinkers. Aim: To examine attentional bias towards alcoholic and non-alcoholic appetitive cues between problem and non-problem drinkers. Method: Forty-one university students (9 male, 32 female; Mage = 21.50) completed an eye-tracking gaze contingency paradigm, measuring the number of times participants looked at peripherally and centrally located stimuli (break frequency) when instructed to maintain focus on a target object. Stimuli consisted of appetitive alcohol-related (e.g., wine), appetitive non-alcohol-related (e.g., cola) and non-appetitive (e.g., fabric softener) stimuli. Participants were split using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) into non-problem (M AUDIT = 3.86) and problematic drinkers (M AUDIT = 11.59). Results: Problematic drinkers had higher break frequencies towards peripheral appetitive stimuli than towards non-appetitive stimuli, while break frequency was equivalent between appetitive cues presented centrally (alcohol and non-alcohol-related). In contrast, there were no differences in break frequency across stimuli type or cue presentation location (central or peripheral) for non-problem drinkers. Conclusion: In contrast to non-problem drinkers, people displaying more problematic consumption practices may find it more difficult to inhibit eye movements towards appetitive stimuli, particularly when in peripheral vision. This may suggest that attentional biases, as measured in terms of overt eye movements, in problem drinkers may be most powerful when the alcoholic and appetitive stimuli are not directly in field of view. An uncertainty reduction process in the allocation of attention to appetitive cues may help explain the patterns of results observed. © 2018

KW - Alcohol

KW - Appetitive

KW - Attentional bias

KW - Gaze contingency

KW - Inhibitory control

U2 - 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.11.034

DO - 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.11.034

M3 - Journal article

VL - 90

SP - 312

EP - 317

JO - Addictive Behaviors

JF - Addictive Behaviors

SN - 0306-4603

ER -