Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9knnw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-21T05:57:14.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A demonstration of attentional bias, using a novel dual task paradigm, towards clinically salient material in recovering alcohol abuse patients?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2003

HELEN WATERS  and
MICHAEL W. GREEN
HELEN WATERS
Affiliation:
From the Department of Psychology, University of Reading; and Psychology Institute, University of Aston, Birmingham
MICHAEL W. GREEN
Affiliation:
From the Department of Psychology, University of Reading; and Psychology Institute, University of Aston, Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background. This study examined whether alcohol abuse patients are characterized either by enhanced schematic processing of alcohol related cues or by an attentional bias towards the processing of alcohol cues.

Method. Abstinent alcohol abusers (N=25) and non-clinical control participants (N=24) performed a dual task paradigm in which they had to make an odd/even decision to a centrally presented number while performing a peripherally presented lexical decision task. Stimuli on the lexical decision task comprised alcohol words, neutral words and non-words. In addition, participants completed an incidental recall task for the words presented in the lexical decision task.

Results. It was found that, in the presence of alcohol related words, the performance of patients on the odd/even decision task was poorer than in the presence of other stimului. In addition, patients displayed slower lexical decision times for alcohol related words. Both groups displayed better recall for alcohol words than for other stimuli.

Conclusions. These results are interpreted as supporting neither model of drug cravings. Rather, it is proposed that, in the presence of alcohol stimuli, alcohol abuse patients display a breakdown in the ability to focus attention.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , April 2003 , pp. 491 - 498
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable