A.P. Astashchenko1, E.V. Dorokhov2, E.R. Orekhova3

1–3 FSBEI HE «N.N. Burdenko Voronezh State Medical University»
of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation (Voronezh, Russia)

1 cercea1@rambler.ru, 2 dorofov@mail.ru, 3 lizzka413@gmail.com

Attention bias is a type of cognitive distortion in which a person pays more attention to affectively significant stimuli than to neutral ones. Attention bias occurs in relation to stimuli associated with current emotional experiences or motivational drives of an individual. This phenomenon can reduce the effectiveness of voluntary control, increase the risk of developing psychosomatic disorders and is a factor in reducing the reliability of operator activity. In this regard, an urgent task is to find reliable bioelectric markers that will allow a deeper understanding of the processes occurring in various cognitive distortions, such as attention bias. In this work, psychophysiological characteristics (the time of sensorimotor reactions and components of evoked potentials) during attention biases relative to threatening visual information in the cognitive task "dot – probe test". The data of 21-channel EEG of 33 healthy subjects recorded during the performance of a cognitive task on attention bias to emotional visual stimuli of negative (anxious) content were analyzed. After completing the cognitive task, the following was identified: 3 groups of subjects with different reaction time to point stimuli after threatening visual stimuli; earlier appearance of the N1 (100 – 150 ms) component in the combined frontal leads; increased amplitude of the P1 (100 – 130 ms) and P2 (220 – 270 ms) components in the combined parietal and occipital leads; earlier appearance of the P2 (220 – 270 ms) component in the parietal leads in participants with a presumable shift of attention to alarming visual information. The results obtained in this work apparently reflect: facilitation of early sensory processing of emotionally significant information of threatening content, and the processes of distribution of automatic attentional resources in participants with a shift of attention to alarming visual information, respectively. The results obtained in this work allow us to consider the parameters (latency and amplitude) of waves N1 (100 – 150 ms), P1 (100 – 130 ms) and P2 (220 – 270 ms) as possible neuromarkers of shifts of attention to alarming visual information.

Astashchenko A.P., Dorokhov E.V., Orekhova E.R. Analysis of evoked potentials during attention shift towards threatening visual information. Technologies of Living Systems. 2025. V. 22. № 3. Р. 63-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18127/j20700997-202503-07 (In Russian).

1. Thigpen N.N., Gruss L.F., Garcia S. et al. What does the dot‐probe task measure? A reverse correlation analysis of electrocortical activity. Psychophysiology. 2018. V. 55 (6). DOI: 10.1111/psyp.13058
2. Posner M.I., Rothbart M.K. Research on Attention Networks as a Model for the Integration of Psychological Science. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007. V. 58(1). Р. 1–23. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085516
3. Zotov M.V. Mekhanizmy regulyacii poznavatel'noj deyatel'nosti v usloviyah emocional'nogo stressa. SPb.: Rech'. 2011. 304 s. (in Russian).
4. Watkins E.R., Roberts H. Reflecting on rumination: Consequences, causes, mechanisms and treatment of rumination. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2020. V. 127. P. 103573. DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2020.103573
5. MacLeod C., Rutherford E., Campbell L. et al. Selective attention and emotional vulnerability: assessing the causal basis of their association through the experimental manipulation of attentional bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2002. V. 111(1). Р. 107–123.
6. Mathews A., MacLeod C. Cognitive Vulnerability to Emotional Disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2005. 1(1). Р. 167–195. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143916
7. Mogg K., Bradley B., Miles F., Dixon R. Time course of attentional bias for threat scenes: testing the vigilance‐avoidance hypothesis. Cognition & Emotion. 2004. 18(5). Р. 689–700. DOI: 10.1080/02699930341000158
8. Burris J.L., Buss K., LoBue V. et al. Biased attention to threat and anxiety: On taking a developmental approach. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology. 2019. V. 10(3). Р. 1–21. DOI: 10.1177/2043808719860717
9. Kappenman E.S., MacNamara A., Proudfit G.H. Electrocortical evidence for rapid allocation of attention to threat in the dot-probe task. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2015. V. 10(4). Р. 577–583. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsu098
10. Chapman A., Devue C., Grimshaw G.M. Fleeting reliability in the dot-probe task. Psychological Research. 2019. V. 83(2). Р. 308–320. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-017-0947-6
11. Brosch T., Pourtois G., Sander D., Vuilleumier P. Additive effects of emotional, endogenous, and exogenous attention: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Neuropsychologia. 2011. V. 49 (7). Р. 1779–1787. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia. 2011.02.056
12. Santesso D.L., Meuret A.E., Hofmann S.G. et al. Electrophysiological correlates of spatial orienting towards angry faces: A source localization study. Neuropsychologia. 2008. V. 46 (5). Р. 1338–1348. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.12.013
13. Hillyard S.A., Luck S.J., Mangun G.R. The Cuing of Attention to Visual Field Locations: Analysis with ERP Recordings. In: Cognitive Electrophysiology. Birkhäuser Boston. 1994. P. 1–25. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4612-0283-7_1
14. Heathcote L.C., Vervoort T., Eccleston C. et al. The relationship between adolescents’ pain catastrophizing and attention bias to pain faces is moderated by attention control. Pain. 2015. V. 156(7). Р. 1334–1341. DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000174
15. Tottenham N., Tanaka J.W., Leon A.C. et al. The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Research. 2009. V. 168(3). Р. 242–249. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2008.05.006
16. MacLeod C., Mathews A., Tata P. Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1986. V. 95(1). Р. 15–20. DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.95.1.15
17. Kharauzov A.K., Shelepin Y.E., Tsvetkov O. et al. Methods of masking threatening images and detecting electrophysiological indicators of their unconscious perception. Journal of Optical Technology. 2020. V. 87(10). Р. 69–80. DOI: 10.1364/JOT.87.000611
18. Bar-Haim Y., Lamy D., Pergamin L. et al. Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin. 2007. V. 133(1). Р. 1–24. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1
19. Shelepin YU.E. Vvedenie v nejroikoniku: Monografiya. SPb.: Troickij most. 2017. 352 s. (in Russian).
20. Fullana M.A., Harrison B.J., Soriano-Mas C. et al. Neural signatures of human fear conditioning: an updated and extended meta-analysis of fMRI studies. Molecular Psychiatry. 2016. V. 21 (4). Р. 500–508. DOI: 10.1038/mp.2015.88
21. Luriya A.R. Osnovy nejropsihologii. M.: Akademiya. 1973. 376 s. (in Russian).
22. Beteleva T.G. Farber D.A. Role of the frontal cortical areas in voluntary and involuntary analysis of visual stimuli. Fiziologiia Cheloveka. 2002. V. 28(5). Р. 5–14.
23. Nelson B.D., Hodges A., Hajcak G., Shankman S.A. Anxiety sensitivity and the anticipation of predictable and unpredictable threat: Evidence from the startle response and event-related potentials. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2015. V. 33. Р. 62–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.05.003
24. Baranov-Krylov I.N., Shuvaev V.T., Berlov D.N. Changes in evoked potentials depending on attention level in performance of visual tasks. Fiziologiia Cheloveka. 2003. V. 29(2). Р. 11–17.
25. di Russo F., Martínez A., Sereno M.I. et al. Cortical sources of the early components of the visual evoked potential. Human Brain Mapping. 2002. V. 15(2). Р. 95–111. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.10010
26. Minyaeva N.P., Kiroi V.N. Gusach Y.I. Evoked activity of the human brain during perception of illusory stimuli. Human Physiology. 2009. V. 35(5). Р. 537–542. DOI: 10.1134/S036211970905003X
27. Itier R.J., Taylor M.J. Face Recognition Memory and Configural Processing: A Developmental ERP Study using Upright, Inverted, and Contrast-Reversed Faces. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2004. V. 16(3). Р. 487–502. DOI: 10.1162/089892904322926818
28. Torrence R.D., Troup L.J. Event‐related potentials of attentional bias toward faces in the dot‐probe task: A systematic review. Psychophysiology. 2018. V. 55(6). DOI: 10.1111/psyp.13051
29. Hillyard S.A., Mangun G.R., Woldorff M.G., Luck S.J. Neural mechanisms mediating selective attention. In Michael S. Gazzaniga (ed.). The Cognitive Neurosciences. 1995. MIT Press.
30. Iakovenko E.A., Kropotov I.D., Chutko L.S. et al. Electrophysiological correlates of attentional disorders in adolescents aged 12-13 years. Fiziologiia Cheloveka. 2003. V. 29(6). Р. 1–6.
31. Finnigan S., O’Connell R.G., Cummins T.D.R. et al. ERP measures indicate both attention and working memory encoding decrements in aging. Psychophysiology. 2011. V. 48(5). Р. 601–611. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01128.x
32. Freyre H.A., Garcia-Aguilar G., Eguibar J.R., Cortes C. Brain Processing of Complex Geometric Forms in a Visual Memory Task Increases P2 Amplitude. Brain Sciences. 2020. V. 10(2). DOI: 10.3390/brainsci10020114
33. Male A.G., O’Shea R.P. Attention is required for canonical brain signature of prediction error despite early encoding of the stimuli. PLOS Biology. 2023. V. 21(6). Article e3001866. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001866
34. Pronina M., Starchenko M.G., Boytsova Y.A. et al. Event-related Potentials in Cued Go/NoGo Task Are Possible Neuromarkers of Monotony. Journal of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology. 2023. V. 59(6). Р. 2367–2380. DOI: 10.1134/S0022093023060376