We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Previous studies investigating attentional biases in social anxiety disorder (SAD) have yielded mixed results. Recent event-related potential (ERP) studies using the dot-probe paradigm in non-anxious participants have shown that the P1 component is sensitive to visuospatial attention towards emotional faces. We used a dot-probe task in conjunction with high-density ERPs and source localization to investigate attentional biases in SAD.
Method
Twelve SAD and 15 control participants performed a modified dot-probe task using angry–neutral and happy–neutral face pairs. The P1 component elicited by face pairs was analyzed to test the hypothesis that SAD participants would display early hypervigilance to threat-related cues. The P1 component to probes replacing angry, happy or neutral faces was used to evaluate whether SAD participants show either sustained hypervigilance or decreased visual processing of threat-related cues at later processing stages.
Results
Compared to controls, SAD participants showed relatively (a) potentiated P1 amplitudes and fusiform gyrus (FG) activation to angry–neutral versus happy–neutral face pairs; (b) decreased P1 amplitudes to probes replacing emotional (angry and happy) versus neutral faces; and (c) higher sensitivity (d′) to probes following angry–neutral versus happy–neutral face pairs. SAD participants also showed significantly shorter reaction times (RTs) to probes replacing angry versus happy faces, but no group differences emerged for RT.
Conclusions
The results provide electrophysiological support for early hypervigilance to angry faces in SAD with involvement of the FG, and reduced visual processing of emotionally salient locations at later stages of information processing, which might be a manifestation of attentional avoidance.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.