双特征接近-回避任务:有效性、训练效果以及应急意识在改变食物偏好中的作用。

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Sercan Kahveci, Hannah van Alebeek, Jens Blechert
{"title":"双特征接近-回避任务:有效性、训练效果以及应急意识在改变食物偏好中的作用。","authors":"Sercan Kahveci, Hannah van Alebeek, Jens Blechert","doi":"10.1080/02699931.2024.2418445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The approach-avoidance task (AAT) probes tendencies contributing to unwanted behaviours, like excessive snacking, by measuring RT differences between approach and avoidance responses to different stimuli. It retrains such tendencies using repeated avoidance of appetitive stimuli and approach of healthy alternatives. The most common paradigm, the irrelevant-feature AAT, conceals these stimulus-response contingencies by requiring approach or avoidance based on features irrelevant to the tendencies (e.g. frame colour). Unfortunately, it is an unreliable measure and not always successful as a training, likely because the stimuli can be ignored. In the novel dual-feature AAT, the <i>combination</i> of stimulus and irrelevant feature determines responses: participants approach foods and avoid objects surrounded by frame A, and vice versa given frame B. We trained 219 online participants to approach fruit and avoid chocolate using active (7:1 stimulus-to-frame contingency) and sham (1:1 stimulus-to-frame contingency) versions of these two trainings. Compared to sham, active irrelevant-feature training was associated with more selection and desire to eat fruit, and active dual-feature training increased approach bias for fruit. Participants' <i>perceived</i> rate of approaching fruit versus chocolate correlated with many outcome measures, suggesting contingency awareness plays a major role in AAT training effectiveness, challenging implicit accounts. While the dual-feature paradigm shows potential, its high error rates, RTs, and difficulty mandate improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":48412,"journal":{"name":"Cognition & Emotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The dual-feature approach-avoidance task: validity, training efficacy, and the role of contingency awareness in changing food preference.\",\"authors\":\"Sercan Kahveci, Hannah van Alebeek, Jens Blechert\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02699931.2024.2418445\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The approach-avoidance task (AAT) probes tendencies contributing to unwanted behaviours, like excessive snacking, by measuring RT differences between approach and avoidance responses to different stimuli. It retrains such tendencies using repeated avoidance of appetitive stimuli and approach of healthy alternatives. The most common paradigm, the irrelevant-feature AAT, conceals these stimulus-response contingencies by requiring approach or avoidance based on features irrelevant to the tendencies (e.g. frame colour). Unfortunately, it is an unreliable measure and not always successful as a training, likely because the stimuli can be ignored. In the novel dual-feature AAT, the <i>combination</i> of stimulus and irrelevant feature determines responses: participants approach foods and avoid objects surrounded by frame A, and vice versa given frame B. We trained 219 online participants to approach fruit and avoid chocolate using active (7:1 stimulus-to-frame contingency) and sham (1:1 stimulus-to-frame contingency) versions of these two trainings. Compared to sham, active irrelevant-feature training was associated with more selection and desire to eat fruit, and active dual-feature training increased approach bias for fruit. Participants' <i>perceived</i> rate of approaching fruit versus chocolate correlated with many outcome measures, suggesting contingency awareness plays a major role in AAT training effectiveness, challenging implicit accounts. While the dual-feature paradigm shows potential, its high error rates, RTs, and difficulty mandate improvement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48412,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition & Emotion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognition & Emotion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2418445\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition & Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2418445","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

接近-回避任务(AAT)通过测量对不同刺激的接近反应和回避反应之间的RT差异,来探测导致过量吃零食等不良行为的倾向。它通过反复回避食欲性刺激和接近健康的替代品来重新训练这种倾向。最常见的范式是无关特征 AAT,它要求根据与倾向无关的特征(如框架颜色)来接近或回避,从而掩盖了这些刺激-反应或然性。遗憾的是,这种测量方法并不可靠,而且作为一种训练方法也并不总是成功的,这很可能是因为刺激可以被忽略。在新颖的双特征 AAT 中,刺激和无关特征的组合决定了反应:参与者接近食物并避开被框架 A 包围的物体,反之亦然。我们使用这两种训练的主动版本(刺激与框架的或然率为 7:1)和假版本(刺激与框架的或然率为 1:1),训练 219 名在线参与者接近水果并避开巧克力。与假训练相比,积极的无关特征训练与更多选择和想吃水果有关,而积极的双特征训练增加了接近水果的偏差。参与者接近水果和巧克力的感知率与许多结果测量相关,这表明或然意识在AAT训练效果中起着重要作用,对隐含的说法提出了挑战。虽然双特征范式显示出了潜力,但其高错误率、高反应时间和高难度仍有待改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The dual-feature approach-avoidance task: validity, training efficacy, and the role of contingency awareness in changing food preference.

The approach-avoidance task (AAT) probes tendencies contributing to unwanted behaviours, like excessive snacking, by measuring RT differences between approach and avoidance responses to different stimuli. It retrains such tendencies using repeated avoidance of appetitive stimuli and approach of healthy alternatives. The most common paradigm, the irrelevant-feature AAT, conceals these stimulus-response contingencies by requiring approach or avoidance based on features irrelevant to the tendencies (e.g. frame colour). Unfortunately, it is an unreliable measure and not always successful as a training, likely because the stimuli can be ignored. In the novel dual-feature AAT, the combination of stimulus and irrelevant feature determines responses: participants approach foods and avoid objects surrounded by frame A, and vice versa given frame B. We trained 219 online participants to approach fruit and avoid chocolate using active (7:1 stimulus-to-frame contingency) and sham (1:1 stimulus-to-frame contingency) versions of these two trainings. Compared to sham, active irrelevant-feature training was associated with more selection and desire to eat fruit, and active dual-feature training increased approach bias for fruit. Participants' perceived rate of approaching fruit versus chocolate correlated with many outcome measures, suggesting contingency awareness plays a major role in AAT training effectiveness, challenging implicit accounts. While the dual-feature paradigm shows potential, its high error rates, RTs, and difficulty mandate improvement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition & Emotion
Cognition & Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: Cognition & Emotion is devoted to the study of emotion, especially to those aspects of emotion related to cognitive processes. The journal aims to bring together work on emotion undertaken by researchers in cognitive, social, clinical, and developmental psychology, neuropsychology, and cognitive science. Examples of topics appropriate for the journal include the role of cognitive processes in emotion elicitation, regulation, and expression; the impact of emotion on attention, memory, learning, motivation, judgements, and decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信