Görsel Dikkat Görevlerinin Bağımlılık Araştırmalarına Etkisi

Bağımlılık araştırmalarında çeşitli görsel dikkat görevlerinden bir ölçüm aracı veya deneysel bir teknik olarak yararlanılmaktadır. Bu derleme çalışmasında sık kullanılan görsel dikkat görevlerinin bağımlılık araştırmalarına olan etkisi incelenmiştir. Bu çerçevede değişim saptama, ikili görev, dikkat yanıp sönmesi ve Stroop testi görevlerinin, bağımlılık araştırmalarında ne amaçla kullanıldığı ve bu araştırmalarda elde edilen bulgular özetlenmiştir. Gerçekleştirilen literatür taramasından hareketle, görsel dikkat görevlerinin bağımlılık araştırmalarında daha çok, bağımlılık nesnesine karşı bireylerin gösterdiği dikkat yanlılığını incelemede kullanıldığı, ayrıca söz konusu çalışmalarda dikkat yanlılığının, bağımlılığın sürdürülmesine olan etkisine vurgu yapıldığı söylenebilir. Ayrıca literatürde görsel dikkat görevlerinin, bağımlılığın tanı ve tedavisinde kullanılma potansiyeline de sıklıkla vurgu yapılmaktadır.

Effect of Visual Attention Tasks on Addiction Research

In addiction research, a number of visual attention tasks are utilized as a measurement tool or an experimental technique. In this review, it is aimed to analyze the effect of common visual attention tasks on addiction research. In this frame, to what end the change detection task, dual task, attentional blink paradigm and Stroop test are utilized in addiction studies and main findings of those studies are summarized. From this point of view, it can be suggested that visual attention tasks are used to investigate individuals’ attentional bias for addicted object in addiction research, moreover, the effect of attentional bias in maintaining the dependence is emphasized. The potential of utilizing visual attention tasks in diagnosing and treating addiction is also emphasized in the literature.

Keywords:

addiction, attentional bias visual attention,

PDF

___

1. Tatler BW. Current understanding of eye guidance. Visual Cognition 2009; 17: 777-789.
2. Posner MI. Orienting of attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1980; 32: 3-25.
3. Underwood G, Foulsham T. Visual saliency and semantic incongruency influence eye movements when inspecting pictures. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2006; 59: 1931-1949.
4. Tatler BW. Characterising the visual buffer: real-world evidence for overwriting early in each fixation. Perception 2001; 30: 993-1006.
5. Simons DJ, Levin DT. Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1998; 5: 644-649.
6. Spiegelhalder K, Espie C, Riemann D. Is sleep-related attentional bias due to sleepiness or sleeplessness? Cognition and Emotion 2009; 23: 541-550.
7. Park H, Min B, Lee K. EEG oscillations reflect visual short-term memory processes for the change detection. NeuroImage 2010; 53: 629-637.
8. Masuda T, Nisbett RE. Culture and change blindness. Cognitive Science 2006; 30: 381-399.
9. Fletcher-Watson S, Collis JM, Findlay MJ, Leekam SR. The development of change blindness: children’s attentional priorities whilst viewing naturalistic scenes. Developmental Science 2009; 12: 438-445.
10. Jones BT, Jones BC, Smith H, Copley N. A flicker paradigm for inducing change blindness reveals alcohol and cannabis information processing biases in social users. Addiction 2003; 98: 235-244.
11. Rensink RA. Change detection. Annual Review of Psychology 2002; 53: 245-277.
12. Simons DJ. Current approaches to change blindness 2000; 7: 1-15.
13. Rensink RA, O'Regan JK, Clark JJ. To see or not to see: the need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science 1997; 8: 368-373.
14. Henderson JM, Hollingworth A. Eye movements and visual memory: Detecting changes to saccade targets in scenes. Perception & Psychophysics 2003; 65: 58-71.
15. O'Regan JK, Deubel H, Clark JJ, Rensink RA. Picture changes during blinks: looking without seeing and seeing without looking. Visual Cognition 2000; 7: 191-211.
16. O'Regan JK, Rensink RA, Clark JJ. Change-blindness as a result of 'mudsplashes'. Nature 1999; 398: 34.
17. Simons DJ, Ambinder MS. Change blindness theory and consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2005; 14: 44-48.
18. Simons DJ, Levin DT. Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1997; 1: 261-267.
19. Simons DJ, Rensink RA. Change blindness: past, present, and future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005; 9: 16-20.
20. Jones BT, Bruce G, Livingstone S, Reed E. Alcohol-related attentional bias in problem drinkers with the flicker change blindness paradigm. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2006; 20: 171-177.
21. Hobson J, Bruce G, Butler SH. A flicker change blindness task employing eye tracking reveals an association with levels of craving not consumption. Journal of Psychopharmacology 2012; 27: 93-97.
22. Jones BC, Jones BT, Blundell L, Bruce G. Social users of alcohol and cannabis who detect substance-related changes in a change blindness paradigm report higher levels of use than those detecting substance-neutral changes. Psychopharmacology 2002; 165: 93-96.
23. Pashler H. Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin 1994; 116: 220-244.
24. Sanders A. F. A summary of resource theories from a behavioral perspective. Biological Psychology 1997; 45: 5-18.
25. Telford CW. The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1931; 14: 1-36.
26. Kimura N, van Deursen R. The effect of visual dual-tasking interference on walking in healthy young adults. Gait & Posture 2020; 79: 80-85.
27. Reliability and practical clinical application of an accelerometer-based dual-task gait balance control assessment. 2019, Gait & Posture, Vol. 71, pp. 279-283.
28. Niederer D, Vogt L, Vogel J, Banzer W. Effects of dual-task conditions on cervical spine movement variability. Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation 2017; 30: 1075–1080.
29. Li KZ, Roudaia E, Lussier M, Bherer L, Leroux A, McKinley PA. Benefits of cognitive dual-task training on balance performance in healthy older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences 2010; 65A: 1344-1352.
30. Choi JH, Kim BR, Han EY, Kim SM. The effect of dual-task training on balance and cognition in patients with subacute post-stroke. Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine 2015; 39: 81-90.
31. Waters H, Green MW. A demonstration of attentional bias, using a novel dual task paradigm, towards clinically salient material in recovering alcohol abuse patients? Psychological Medicine 2003; 33: 491-498.
32. Cepeda-Benito A, Tiffany ST. The use of dual-task procedure for the assessment of cognitive effort associated with cigarette craving. Psychopharmacology 1996; 127: 155-163.
33. Raymond JE, Shapiro KL, Arnell KM. Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1992; 18: 849-860. 34. Weichselgartner E, Sperling, G. Dynamics of automatic and controlled visual attention. Science 1987; 238: 778-780.
35. Drew T, Shapiro K. Representational masking and the attentional blink. Visual Cognition 2006; 13: 513-528.
36. Arnell KM, Howe AE, Joanisse MF, Klein RM. Relationships between attentional blink magnitude, RSVP target accuracy, and performance on other cognitive tasks. Memory & Cognition 2006; 34: 1472-1483.
37. İyilikci O, Ertan Ö. yüz çekiciliğinin dikkat yanıp sönmesi sürecinde neden olduğu dikkat yanlılığının incelenmesi. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları 2012; 15: 53-60.
38. Most SB, Smith SD, Cooter AB, et al. The naked truth: Positive, arousing distractors impair rapid target perception. Cognition and Emotion 2007; 21: 964-981.
39. Maratos FA, Mogg K, Bradley, et al. Identification of angry faces in the attentional blink. Cognition and Emotion 2008; 22: 1340-1352.
40. Georgiou-Karistianis N, Tang J, Vardy, Y, et al. Progressive age-related changes in the attentional blink paradigm. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition 2007; 14: 213-226.
41. Campbell DW, Stewart S, Gray CE, et al. Chronic cannabis use and attentional bias: Extended attentional capture to cannabis cues. Addictive Behaviors 2018; 81: 17-21.
42. Chanon VW, Sours CR, Boettiger CA. Attentional bias toward cigarette cues in active smokers. Psychopharmacology 2010; 212: 309-320.
43. Neimeijer RA, deJong PJ, Roefs A.Temporal attention for visual food stimuli in restrained eaters. Appetite 2013; 64: 5-11.
44. Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1935; 18: 643-662.
45. MacLeod CM. Half a centry of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin 1991; 109: 163-203.
46. Dahdah MN, Bennet M, Prajapati P, Parsons TD, Sullivan E, Driver S. Application of virtual environments in a multi-disciplinary day neurorehabilitation program to improve executive functioning using the Stroop task. NeuroRehabilitation 2017; 41: 721–734.
47. Nejati V, Pouretemad HM, Bahrami H. Attention Training in rehabilitation of children with developmental stuttering. NeuroRehabilitation 2013; 32: 297–303.
48. Frings C, Englert J, Wentura D, et al. Decomposing the emotional Stroop effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2010; 63: 42-49.
49. Canamar CP, London E. Acute cigarette smoking reduces latencies on a Smoking Stroop test. Addictive Behaviors 2012; 37: 627-631.
50. Dong G, Zhou H, Zhao X. Male Internet addicts show impaired executive control ability: Evidence from a color-word Stroop task. Neuroscience Letters 2011; 499: 114-118.
51. Modi P, Malik L, Kumar K, et al. Attentional biases for alcohol-Stroop test in patients with alcohol dependence. Open Journal of Psychiatry & Allied Sciences 2019; 10: 155-158.
52. Marissen MA, Franken IH, Waters AJ, et al. Attentional bias predicts heroin relapse following treatment. Addiction 2006; 101: 1306–1312.
53. Hønsi A, Mentzoni RA, Molde H, et al. Attentional bias in problem gambling: a systematic review. Journal of Gambling Studies 2013; 29: 359–375.
54. Mühlig S, Paulick J, Lindenmeyer J, et al. Applying the ‘cognitive bias modification’ concept to smoking cessation – a systematic review. Sucht: Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis 2016; 62: 333–354.