
==== Front
Ther Adv Psychopharmacol
Ther Adv Psychopharmacol
TPP
sptpp
Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology
2045-1253
2045-1261
SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England

10.1177/20451253241278872
10.1177_20451253241278872
Letter to the Editor
Comment on: Attentional bias modification and attention control training in PTSD: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Creupelandt Coralie Centre national de ressources et de résilience Lille-Paris (Cn2r), Lille, France
Conceptualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing
Veerapa Emilie Université de Lille, Inserm, CHU Lille, U1172 - LilNCog - Lille Neuroscience and Cognition, Lille, France
Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Bugnet Arnaud Université de Lille, Inserm, CHU Lille, U1172 - LilNCog - Lille Neuroscience and Cognition, Lille, France
Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Wathelet Marielle Agence Régionale de Santé, Hauts-de-France, Lille, France
Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Demesmaeker Alice Centre national de ressources et de résilience Lille-Paris (Cn2r), Lille, France
Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Grandgenevre Pierre Université de Lille, Inserm, CHU Lille, U1172 - LilNCog - Lille Neuroscience and Cognition, Lille, France
Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Vaiva Guillaume Centre national de ressources et de résilience Lille-Paris (Cn2r), Lille, France
Université de Lille, Inserm, CHU Lille, U1172 - LilNCog - Lille Neuroscience and Cognition, Lille, France
Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Fovet Thomas Université de Lille, Inserm, CHU Lille, U1172 - LilNCog - Lille Neuroscience and Cognition, Lille, France
Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5683-0490
D’Hondt Fabien Centre national de ressources et de résilience Lille-Paris (Cn2r), 103 Boulevard de la Liberté, 59000, Lille, France
Université de Lille, Inserm, CHU Lille, U1172 - LilNCog - Lille Neuroscience and Cognition, 1 Place de Verdun, 59045 Lille CEDEX, France
Conceptualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing
fabien.d-hondt@univ-lille.fr
17 9 2024
2024
14 2045125324127887221 6 2024
8 8 2024
© The Author(s), 2024
2024
SAGE Publications Ltd unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
cover-dateJanuary-December 2024
typesetterts1
==== Body
pmcWe read the paper by Zhang et al. 1 with great interest as it addresses a timely issue in advancing current PTSD treatments. While existing therapies benefit many patients, up to 30% do not fully recover and continue to experience residual symptoms impacting daily functioning.2,3 Therapies targeting attentional biases (AB) have emerged as promising adjuncts, drawing from cognitive models that highlight the role of these biases in the onset and persistence of the disorder. 4

Zhang et al. conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of attentional bias modification (ABM) versus attention control training (ACT). ABM aims to reduce negative attentional biases by training individuals to focus on nonthreatening stimuli, while ACT allows individuals to maintain their natural attentional patterns with threat-related contingencies being irrelevant to task performance. Zhang et al. concluded that ACT was more effective in treating PTSD symptoms, underscoring its therapeutic potential.

Beyond the limitations acknowledged by Zhang et al., such as the limited number of included studies and significant heterogeneity between them, we identify three major issues that question the therapeutic potential of ACT:

First, the studies included in the meta-analysis did not use a genuine control condition, preventing definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of either ABM or ACT. Studies incorporating alternate non-emotional tasks report no difference in PTSD symptom reduction compared to ABM and ACT. 5 This suggests that non-specific attentional control effects may be at play and should be properly controlled by using an inactive control condition, such as a waiting list, to account for changes unrelated to these techniques, including treatment-related expectancy effects.

Second, Zhang et al. did not observe a significant group difference between ABM and ACT in reducing AB, raising questions about the mechanism through which ACT might exert its therapeutic effects. Moreover, few studies assessed whether symptom reduction correlates with a decrease in AB, making it impossible to ascertain the association between changes in AB and symptom reduction.

Third, a broader concern exists regarding the very presence of AB in PTSD. A meta-analysis that included dot-probe data from clinically anxious individuals and individuals with PTSD across 13 ABM RCTs found no significant evidence that these individuals are characterized by a threat-related attention bias at baseline. 6 These findings question the assumption that AB toward threats is a consistent characteristic in PTSD, and thus the relevance of therapies aimed at reducing it to improve symptoms. Although Zhang et al. recognize this problem, they do not address that the reliability of AB measures based on response times, especially with dot-probe tasks, has been questioned. This has led researchers to explore alternative methods for evaluating these biases. 7 Eye-tracking, which infers attention allocation to stimuli from eye movements and fixations during direct exposure has confirmed that individuals with PTSD tend to allocate more attentional resources to aversive stimuli.8,9 In addition, we recently showed that the first moments of exposure to neutral and negative stimuli are characterized by greater engagement of attention toward aversive stimuli in both healthy individuals and individuals with PTSD.10,11 However, this bias is more pronounced among the latter and increases with prolonged exposure to stimuli, unlike healthy individuals who tend to balance their visual exploration over time.

Drawing on these aspects, we conclude that current evidence does not establish the efficacy of ABM or ACT on AB or PTSD-related outcomes. Future studies should favor (i) the inclusion of robust control conditions; (ii) the use of reliable measures like those provided by eye-tracking; (iii) targeting AB components specifically linked to PTSD; and (iv) exploring the relationship between modifications in these components and PTSD symptom alleviation.

None.

Declarations

ORCID iD: Fabien D’Hondt https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5683-0490

Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Author contributions: Coralie Creupelandt: Conceptualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Emilie Veerapa: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.

Arnaud Bugnet: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.

Marielle Wathelet: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.

Alice Demesmaeker: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.

Pierre Grandgenevre: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.

Guillaume Vaiva: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.

Thomas Fovet: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.

Fabien D’Hondt: Conceptualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Competing interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Availability of data and material: Not applicable.
==== Refs
References

1 Zhang F Huang C Yan W , et al . Attentional bias modification and attention control training in PTSD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol 2024; 14 : 20451253241243260.
2 Larsen SE Fleming CJE Resick PA. Residual symptoms following empirically supported treatment for PTSD. Psychol Trauma 2019; 11 (2 ): 207–215.29963892
3 Schnurr PP Lunney CA. Residual symptoms following prolonged exposure and present-centered therapy for PTSD in female veterans and soldiers. Depression Anxiety 2019; 36 (2 ): 162–169.30576030
4 Aupperle RL Melrose AJ Stein MB , et al . Executive function and PTSD: disengaging from trauma. Neuropharmacology 2012; 62 (2 ): 686–694.21349277
5 Segal A Pine DS Bar-Haim Y. Personalized attention control therapy for PTSD: effectiveness and moderators of outcome in a randomized controlled trial. Psychol Med 2022; 52 (12 ): 2365–2375.33231534
6 Kruijt AW Parsons S Fox E. A meta-analysis of bias at baseline in RCTs of attention bias modification: no evidence for dot-probe bias towards threat in clinical anxiety and PTSD. J Abnormal Psychol 2019; 128 (6 ): 563–573.
7 MacLeod C Grafton B Notebaert L. Anxiety-linked attentional bias: is it reliable? Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2019; 15 (1 ): 529–554.30649926
8 Clauss K Gorday JY Bardeen JR . Eye tracking evidence of threat-related attentional bias in anxiety- and fear-related disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2022; 93 : 102142.35279537
9 Lazarov A Suarez-Jimenez B Tamman A , et al . Attention to threat in posttraumatic stress disorder as indexed by eye-tracking indices: a systematic review. Psychol Med 2019; 49 (5 ): 705–726.30178728
10 Veerapa E Grandgenevre P El Fayoumi M , et al . Attentional bias towards negative stimuli in healthy individuals and the effects of trait anxiety. Sci Rep 2020; 10 (1 ): 11826.32678129
11 Veerapa E Grandgenevre P Vaiva G , et al . Attentional bias toward negative stimuli in PTSD: an eye-tracking study. Psychol Med 2023; 53 (12 ): 5809–5817.36259422
