Examinando por Autor "Robles, Elena"

Mostrando 1 - 2 de 2

Attentional biases towards emotional information in chronic pain: A multilevel meta-analysis of eye-tracking studies.
(Elsevier, 2024-10-29) Robles, Elena; Nieto, Inés; Navas, Juan Francisco; Vazquez, Carmelo; Vazquez, Carmelo
Objective This meta-analysis reviewed the existing literature on attentional biases towards emotional stimuli measured with eye-tracking methodologies in individuals with chronic pain. Method Eighteen relevant studies (n = 1331 participants) were identified through three electronic databases: PubMed, PsycInfo, and Scopus. A multilevel random-effects meta-analysis was conducted by using the standardized mean difference between gaze variables for emotional and neutral stimuli with Hedge's correction as the effect size (ES). Results Between-group analyses revealed that healthy individuals make longer first fixation towards neutral stimuli compared to chronic pain patients. Within-group analyses showed that, compared to the healthy control group, the chronic pain group had more first fixations towards pain-related stimuli than to neutral ones and had shorter fixation duration towards anger-related stimuli than to neutral stimuli. A moderation effect of paradigm and type of stimuli was also found. Conclusions This is the first meta-analysis exploring attentional biases not only towards pain-related stimuli, but also towards other emotional information. Our findings revealed that chronic pain individuals tend to focus their attention firstly on pain-related information in comparison to healthy individuals. Furthermore, chronic pain individuals maintain their attention on anger-related stimuli less than on neutral ones.
Self-reported cognitive biases in depression: A meta-analysis.
(Elsevier, 2020-12) Nieto, Inés; Robles, Elena; Vazquez, Carmelo
Despite the influence of Beck's cognitive models of depression, the presence and magnitude of the specific proposed cognitive biases have not been systematically investigated. After a systematic search in PsycInfo and PubMED, studies reporting self-reported outcomes on cognitive biases and depressive symptoms in depressed and/or healthy groups were included. From a total of 4840 records, two different meta-analyses were conducted. 23 studies on 4865 participants provided data about catastrophising and depression (g = 0.95, 95% CI [0.64; 1.26]) and 40 studies on 4678 participants provided data about interpretation bias in depression (g = 0.78, 95% CI [0.43; 1.13]). Moderation analyses showed that the relationship between catastrophising and depression was higher in studies with more women, when the corresponding author was from a Western country, and when the instrument to measure depression was the DSM criteria, the SCL-90, the BDI, or the DASS. The relationship between interpretation bias and depressive symptoms was significant only in studies comparing depressed and healthy groups, and when using specific instruments to measure symptoms (DSM/RDC criteria plus a scale cut-off score) and cognitive bias (CDQ/CBQ, SCT, AST-D, other). Some limitations are acknowledged, but risk of publication bias was found to be low, and these results support the utility of some self-reported measures of cognitive biases in depression.