4.4 Article

Information processing biases and panic disorder: Relationships among cognitive and symptom measures

期刊

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
卷 45, 期 8, 页码 1791-1811

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2007.01.009

关键词

information processing; panic disorder; interpretation; attention; implicit associations; automatic

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R03 MH068756, R03 MH068756-02] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [R03 PA03039] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To test cognitive models of panic disorder, a range of information processing biases were examined among persons with panic disorder (N = 43) and healthy control participants (N = 38). Evidence for automatic associations in memory was assessed using the Implicit Association Test, interference effects related to attention biases were assessed using a modified supraliminal Stroop task, and interpretation biases were assessed using the Brief Body Sensations Interpretation Questionnaire. In addition, the relationship between information processing biases and clinical markers of panic (including affective, behavioral, and cognitive symptom measures) was investigated, along with the relationships among biases. Results indicated more threat biases among the panic (relative to control) group on each of the information processing measures, providing some of the first evidence for an implicit measure of panic associations. Further, structural equation modeling indicated that the information processing bias measures were each unique predictors of panic symptoms, but that the bias indicators did not relate to one another. These findings suggest that cognitive factors may independently predict panic symptoms, but not covary. Results are discussed in terms of their support for cognitive models of panic and the potential for automatic versus strategic processing differences across the tasks to explain the low relationships across the biases. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据