1. Fig. 3 Attentional bias score Note: Attentional bias score, calculated as the difference between each category RT and neutral RT, reflects the effect of word type, with positive values indicating a greater bias. Results ◆The modified Stroop task Attentional bias score (Fig. 3): A 2 (group) *3 (word category) ANOVA showed no significant main effects or interactions (all ps >.10). IBS-relatednegativepositive Fig. 2-b Test session Fig. 2-a Training session ＋ Red Correct/Incorr ect/Time over + 1000ms 5000ms/ response 1000ms ＋ Stomach ＋ Anxiety 1000ms 5000ms/ response 1000ms Questionnaires IBSSI (Irritable Bowel Syndrome Severity Index) IBSQOL (Irritable Bowel Syndrome Quality Of Life) SF-36 (Medical outcomes Study Short Form 36) BDI (Beck’s Depression Inventory – II) STAI (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) ASI (Anxiety Sensitivity Inventory) AAQ (Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II) CFQ (Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire) FFMQ (Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire) Participants Participants with IBS: 35 undergraduates who scored above the clinical cutoff on an IBS-SI screening. Healthy Controls (HC): 35 undergraduates who scored below the clinical cutoff on an IBS-SI screening. The modified Stroop task We used the modified Stroop task for measuring attentional bias. We measured participants’ Reaction Time (RT) and errors in each session. This task consisted of a practice session and a test session. Task stimuli were words displayed at random in 4 colors (red, blue, green, yellow). Participants pressed the corresponding key on a ten-key pad. Attentional bias score was calculated as the difference between each category RT and neutral RT (3 conditions; IBS- related, negative, positive). Practice session (Fig. 2-a) Words: “red” ”blue” ”green” ”yellow” in Japanese Trials: 2 – 5 blocks (each block had 16 trials: 4 colors * 4 words). Criteria: 80% correct responses in the latest block Test session (Fig. 2-b) Words:10 words in each of the 4 categories (IBS- related, negative, positive, neutral). Words were matched for length and frequency. Trials: 160 trials (4 colors*4 categories*10 words).Each word appeared four times in each color in a random order. Background & Objective The biopsychosocial model suggests that attention plays a role in the mechanism of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). The modified Stroop task has been used to demonstrate attentional bias toward threat cues in anxious individuals (Williams et al. 1996). Afzal et al. (2007) found that IBS patients have an attentional bias to IBS-related words, but the study used only IBS-related and neutral words. The objective of this study is to examine whether IBS show an attentional bias that is specific to IBS related stimuli. Discussion These results show that IBS patients do not have an attentional bias toward IBS-related stimuli. They did not show speed-accuracy trade off, because although they had significantly higher error rates than HCs, their RTs were not shorter. These results suggest that attention does not play an important role in IBS symptoms. The results of ASI and AAQ suggested IBS patients tend to avoid or escape aversive stimuli. Task performance was consistent with this tendency. ◆Questionnaires (Table 2) We used t-tests to compare participants questionnaire scores with IBS and HCs. Participants with IBS showed worse scores on the QOL, BDI, STAI, ASI, and AAQ. Attentional Bias in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Implications for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy # 1-5 Masataka Ito 1, Takashi Muto 2 1 Graduate school of Psychology, Doshisha university 2 Faculty of Psychology, Doshisha University E-mail: ito.mstka@gmail.com Screening by IBS-SI n = 331 IBS (n= 68) IBS n=38 Exclude n=30 HC (n=103) HC n=44 Exclude n=59 Analyzed IBS n=35 (Male =12 ) HC n=35 (Male = 14) ・ Questionnaires (IBSSI, IBSQOL, SF-36, BDI-II, STAI, ASI, AAQ-II, CFQ, FFMQ) ・The modified Stroop Task Training / Test session Fig. 1 Procedure Exclude ・Getting better (n=3) Exclude ・Getting worse (n=3) These results showed that participants with IBS do not have attentional biases in any category. They produced more errors, but not shorter RTs. Table 1. Mean and standard deviations RT and trial errors in the modified Stroop task Table 2. Mean and standard deviations for the questionnaires Reaction time: A 2 (group) * 4 (word category) ANOVA showed no significant main effects or interactions (all ps >.10). Trial error: A 2 (group) * 4 (word category) ANOVA analysis showed that the IBS group made significantly more errors (p.10). Attentional bias score (ms) (p<.10) Method (p<.05)