An electrophysiological investigation of attentional bias in a PTSD population.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evidence relying on probe detection tasks suggests that anxious individuals exhibit an enhanced selective attentional bias toward emotional or threating stimuli, characterized by attentional vigilance or avoidance of threat. METHOD: Amplitude of P100 and P300 event-related potentials and behavioral measures of target detection were assessed during presentation of a dot-probe task in 18 posttraumatic stress disorder patients and 18 healthy controls to elucidate the effects of attentional bias toward threatening facial expressions. RESULTS: Perceptual (P100) processing of threat-face pairs revealed no evidence of attentional bias in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) patients. PTSD patients exhibited larger P100 and P300 amplitude to probes replacing neutral rather than angry faces, indicating an increased allocation of early perceptual and later strategic processing away from anger-related stimuli. CONCLUSION: The present study provided no support for facilitated engagement in this sample of patients. Possible interpretations of the results related to differential processing of target probes replacing angry-neutral face pairs are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".