1. Attentional Bias Modification: Effectiveness on Behavioural and Neurological Measures with High and Low Self-Esteem Individuals Pears, M., Pearson, S.L.*, & Goodson, S. – Department of Behavioural and Social Sciences @HuddersfieldUni RESEARCH AIMS AND PREDICTIONS To explore the different electrophysiological processes occurring during both ABM and control dot-probe tasks, between high and low self- esteem individuals. Are there significant processes altering the effectiveness of the ABM dot- probe paradigm and the subsequent cognitive process of memory? Keywords: Self-Esteem, Attentional Bias Modification, EEG, memory. BACKGROUND Research is starting to delve into the neural mechanisms and trajectories of change during Attentional Bias Modification (ABM). This computerised technique has been applied to a variety of clinical and non-clinical populations. Mixed results have been concluded regarding the success of the single session ABM paradigm. However, the individual factor of Self-Esteem has had little involvement in this contemporary development. Key Points Precise:256-channel EGI dEEG HydroCel Geodesic Sensor Net 130 (left picture) Contemporary: Attentional Bias Modification technique directly alters cognitive biases by use of computerized training practice In-depth: 400 previously rated words – high and low valence scores calculated for each word. Questionnaires along with EEG measures ensuring detailed analysis. Participants 28 female (Mage = 23.07, SD = 8.02) and 12 male (Mage = 24.68, SD = 7.63) students with a Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale score of 20 or below were the low SE group(M=18.4, SD=3), and RSES score of 21 or above constitutes the high SE group (M=24.65, SD=2.5). The Beck Depression Inventory II mean scores of 4.3 (SD=4.05) were for the control condition, and mean scores of 10.55(SD=7.55) for participants in the ABM condition. Several other inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied. Procedure Once the dEEG was applied, participants completed one version of the dot-probe task (lasting 10 minutes). Equipment was removed and after a 5 minute break a memory task was conducted (20 words of previously viewed high/low valence were displayed) -participants had to remember these words (lasting 5 minute). After a five minute break, participants recalled words from the Memory task. British Psychological Society Annual Conference May 2015 Huddersfield University - Inspiring tomorrow's professionals Methodology Results–ABM reduces attention to negative stimuli Discussion Poster Design – U1060192@hud.ac.uk 200ms-300ms after stimulus response Does a single session of ABM significantly reduce attention towards negative stimuli? YES Does Self–Esteem significantly effect the successful application of ABM as determined by ERP’s and memory recall? NO References: Everaert, J., Duyck, W., and Koster, E. H. (2014). Attention, Interpretation, and Memory Biases in Subclinical Depression: A Proof-of-Principle Test of the Combined Cognitive Biases Hypothesis. Emotion, 14(2), 331. Grundy, J. G., Benarroch, M. F., Lebarr, A. N., & Shedden, J. M. (2014). Electrophysiological correlates of implicit valenced self-processing in high vs. low self-esteem individuals. Social neuroscience, 1-13. Doi:10.1080/17470919.2014.965339 Kaiser, R. H., Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Spielberg, J. M., Warren, S. L., Sutton, B. P., Miller, G. A.,& Banich, M. T. (2014). Distracted and down: neural mechanisms of affective interference in subclinical depression. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience. Mogoaşe, C., David, D., & Koster, E. H. (2014). Clinical Efficacy of Attentional Bias Modification Procedures: An Updated Meta‐Analysis. Journal of clinical psychology.70(12), 1133-1157. Osinsky, R., Wilisz, D., Kim, Y., Karl, C., & Hewig, J. (2014). Does a single session of Attentional Bias Modification influence early neural mechanisms of spatial attention? An ERP study. Psychophysiology.51(10), 982-989 An independent t-test comparing effects of SE with Control and ABM conditions showed: No significant difference between negative word recall frequency (CONTROL=t(17)=1.3, p=0.213, ABM= t(19)=0.66, p=0.519) and neutral words (CONTROL= t(17)=-0.98, p=0.341, ABM= t(19)=0.75, p=0.465). Also, there was no significant attentional response bias towards word valence (t(1, 39) = -1.08, p=0.29) between the two SE groups Behavioural ResultsNeurological Results A repeated measures general linear model was performed showing no significant difference in amplitude between high and low SE in the 3 ROI’s. I.e.- prefrontal line 200- 280ms (t (17)=-1.35, p=0.195) 320-400ms (t(17)=-1.65, p=0.117) 600-900 ms (t(17)=-1.44, p=0.17) Mean Amplitude Control ABM Dot- Probe condition -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Mean amplitude difference for both Self-Esteem X Condition. 200-280ms (t (37)=4.37,p<0.001) 320-400ms (t (37)=5.13,p<0.001) 600-900ms (t (37)=4.56,p<0.001) No significance Self-Esteem: High= Low= ABM Negative words ABM Neutral words Control Negative words Control Neutral words Electrodes: Prefrontal line= Frontocentral region = Centroparietal Z line = However for high SE, NOT low SE participants, there was a significant decrease in amplitude to the correct responses to negative words, in the ABM compared to the control dot-probe task for the centroparietal Z line. This occurred in all three time windows: 200-280ms (t(18)=3.57, p=0.002) 320-400ms (t(18)=3.10,p=0.006) 600-900ms (t(18)=3, p=0.008). There were significant reductions in neurological response to negative words presented to both high and low SE participants in the prefrontal line at all 3 time windows: A possible explanation for this finding: participants processed all words relating to their Self. This is contingent with the sources of self-processing, located over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the medial prefrontal cortex. Therefore, compared to the Control condition the ABM condition significantly reduced amplitude positivity caused by self-processing of negative words: thus preventing the possibility of more intense of emotionally negative self-processing. Centroparietal line- Only high SE participants showed significantly reduced amplitudes in the ABM condition. This is dissimilar to the theoretical underpinnings of ABM - participants who do not display higher appraisals pertaining to an attention bias associated with a disorder (i.e. high SE) should not show a significant decrease in neurological processes of attention towards the negative stimuli. Matthew.Pears@hud.ac.uk / S.Goodson@hud.ac.uk A possible explanation for this finding: high SE participants had a higher mean amplitude due to a pre-existing attentional mechanism in the Control condition. This mismatch mechanism registered the negative stimuli as inconsistent with their current general positive views, thus violating those views. Therefore as the ABM condition trains them to attend less to negative stimuli, this violation is no longer present. Prefrontal line- Both high and low SE participants showed significantly reduced amplitudes in the ABM condition in comparison to the control condition. Mismatch Negativity and high Self-Esteem The significant difference was absent for low SE participants as they may have a predefined susceptibility to concur with stimuli associated with their SE level, as the stimuli is likely to match valence with their particular emotional state. Attentional Control and the Prefrontal Cortex