The Dot-Probe Task | Full Guide

The Dot-Probe Task is a widely used paradigm or experimental tool in various fields of psychology. It helps in evaluating how attentional processes take place in individuals when faced with two different stimuli at the same time. Analyses of these scenarios reveal information on the cognitive functions related to the attentional allocation, its implications and applications in multiple domains of research and practice. The dot probe paradigm is also commonly used as a task in intervention settings as a basis for how treatment can improve attentional processes for anxiety-related cues.

History

The dot-probe task was first developed by MacLeod, Mathews, and Tata (1986) as a tool to investigate attentional bias that individuals tend to exhibit toward threatening stimuli. It was actually developed as a modification of the Posner paradigm (1980). While the Posner task primarily used stimuli without necessarily involving emotional content, the dot-probe task introduced stimuli with personal or emotional relevance (Starzomska, 2017).

According to Eysenck et al. (1987), the dot-probe task has a similarity to the research carried out by Christos Halkiopoulos in 1981. Halkiopoulos studied attentional biases individuals tend to have towards threatening auditory information when coupled with non-threatening auditory information in a dichotic listening task. This method was subsequently modified into its visual format by MacLeod et al. (1986) and came to be known as the dot probe paradigm that is still popular in the present day. Over time, the dot-probe task has become a classic task in cognitive and clinical psychology, particularly in anxiety research.

Dot-Probe Task Description

The dot-probe task operates on the assumption that individuals tend to exhibit attentional biases toward or away from specific stimuli. Thus, the main stimuli used in the task are a) a stimulus of interest and b) a neutral stimulus. After these stimuli quickly disappear, a dot/probe target appears in one of the two locations (where the stimuli were located previously) and the participant must indicate its location via keypress. The expectation is that there is a significant difference in response for reacting to probes in the location of where the stimuli of interest was initially present, compared to neutral stimuli, highlighting attentional bias.

The image below gives an illustration of how that task functions:

An illustration of a dot-probe task trial.
Morales, S., Fu, X., & Pérez-Edgar, K. E. (2016).

In-depth explanation of the Dot-Probe Paradigm

In the dot-probe task, the screen usually starts by presenting a fixation point where participants focus their gaze prior the actual stimuli onset. This ensures that participants’ attention starts at a central location, reducing any biases in eye movements. After a specific duration (e.g, 500ms), a stimulus of interest (for example: an angry face or negative word) and a neutral stimulus appear simultaneously in different spatial locations (for example: left and right positions) on the screen. After a brief presentation time (e.g. 500ms), a target (dot or probe) appears in the location of one of the presented stimuli. Participants are required to respond quickly to the target’s position. There are two possibilities here:

• Congruent Trials: The target appears at the location where the stimulus of interest was presented.

• Incongruent Trials: The target appears at the location where the neutral stimulus was presented.

Data Collected

The administration of the dot-probe task is integrated with the collection of data metrics. The type of data collected from each task differs based on the requirements and objectives of the study. Here are a few key metrics:

• Reaction Time: The speed at which participants respond to the dot’s location. Shorter reaction times (RTs) in congruent trials show that the individual had attended to the location where the probe was displayed (suggesting vigilance).
• Attentional bias score (ABS): ABS is the mean difference score between reaction times on incongruent and congruent trials (RT incongruent–RT congruent).
• Cue-Target-Onset Asynchrony (CTOA): The time interval between the presentation of a cue (e.g., emotional/neutral stimulus) and the target stimulus (dot or probe).
• Accuracy: The correctness in identifying the dot’s location.
• Identification Errors: The instances where the participant failed to locate the probe or incorrectly identified the location of the probe.
• Eye Movements: Tracking gaze patterns using eye tracking technology.
• Brain Imaging Data: Techniques like fMRI and EEG to capture neural activity.

Possible Confounds to Consider

There are certain factors that could influence the results of dot-probe paradigm studies. These are to be taken into consideration by researchers. Here are a few:

• Personal Characteristics: Personal characteristics or individual differences of the participants could be a possible confound of the dot-probe task. For example, the personal trait of extroversion in individuals could cause an attentional shift away from negative stimuli (Amin et al., 2004).
• Age: Age can often influence attention for emotional stimuli. Older age group individuals tend to have an attentional bias towards happy faces or positive information. It suggests that older individuals may avoid negative expressions (Mather & Carstensen, 2003).
• Gender: Studies show that gender differences are commonly found in emotional processing and attention. Women tend to show an attentional bias toward angry faces, whereas men exhibit an attentional bias towards happy faces. This is especially true for individuals with high anxiety (van Rooijen et al., 2017).
• Testosterone Levels: Studies have shown that there exists a relationship between testosterone levels (in both men and women) and attentional bias in the dot-probe task. Individuals with higher testosterone levels, particularly in the morning, were more likely to exhibit attentional bias away from anger faces when performing the dot-probe task (Wirth & Schultheiss, 2007).
• Clinical Conditions: Various clinical conditions could influence the participant performance in dot-probe tasks. For instance, individuals with depression often tend to exhibit a strong bias toward negative stimuli, whereas individuals with anxiety often show increased brain responses for emotional faces, irrespective of the emotional expression (Peckham et al., 2010; van Rooijen et al., 2017).
• Perceptual characteristics: When presenting image pairs, in order to not introduce bias, it’s also important to match the images as closely as possible for perceptual characteristics (ie. brightness, complexity, etc) (Kemps, E., Tiggemann, M., & Hollitt, S.. 2014).
• Frequency of word usage or word length: In the instance where the dot-probe paradigm is administered with words instead of pictures, researchers tend to balance their stimuli based on the frequency (or popularity of the word, ie. how common in everyday language it is), as well as the word length (MacMahon, K. M., Broomfield, N. M., & Espie, C. A., 2006).

Variations of the Dot-Probe Paradigm

Since its development, researchers have developed multiple variations of the dot-probe paradigm. These variations are in different forms (Vervoort et al., 2021), including:

• Presentation Times: The duration of the exposure time of each stimulus.
• Stimulus Types: The type of stimulus being used for the study. It could be in verbal, pictorial or any other form. Furthermore, the content and nature of the stimuli can vary across dot-probe paradigms. For example, it is common to come across research papers utilizing the dot-probe paradigm but see them use different sets of images as their stimuli.
• Stimulus Alignment: The stimuli being used could be aligned vertically or horizontally, depending on the study requirements.
• Number of Trials: The number of trials incorporated in a study design.

In research, there are countless variations of the dot-probe paradigm that have been used across various contexts. A few of these are discussed and highlighted below:

• Word-based dot-probe paradigm: In this modified dot probe task, two words (typically one emotionally valenced and one neutral) are presented simultaneously to the participants. One of the words is then followed by the appearance of a visual probe (i.e., a dot) to measure the distribution of attention based on the emotion associated with the words (Sutton & Altarriba, 2011).

• Pain-specific version: In this variation, the researchers utilized both word-based and picture-based dot-probe tasks in order to understand pain-related biases. The stimuli for the participants were idiosyncratically selected (ie. specifically chosen for each individual participant based on their personal experiences and feelings). However, the study findings suggested that the dot-probe paradigm may not be a reliable tool for measuring attentional biases in the context of pain (Dear et al., 2011). Instead, it is possible that pain-related stimuli have an influence on performance on all participants due to the inherent fear propensity associated with pain-related words (Asmundson, G. J., Carleton, N. R., & Ekong, J.. 2005)

• Dot probe task using cocaine-related images: The study made use of cocaine-related images as the stimuli, along with neutral images (furniture) with an aim to assess attentional bias towards substance-related cues. The participants were also required to listen to personalized trauma and neutral scripts before the dot-probe task. Findings showed that individuals with PTSD showed an attentional bias towards cocaine imagery and those without PTSD showed bias away from cocaine imagery (Tull et al., 2011).

• Dot-probe task with happy faces: Attentional bias towards happy faces was assessed in this study where the researchers utilized a shorter Cue-Target-Onset Asynchrony (CTOA) (the time interval between the presentation of a cue stimulus and target stimulus) of 100 ms, as opposed to the commonly used longer CTOAs (eg., 500 ms). Attentional bias was observed towards happy faces (Wirth & Wentura, 2020).

• Emotional cueing task: In this modified version of the dot-probe task, participants only see one face at a time, as opposed two two images simultaneously presented as in the original task. The face presented will be either an emotional face (like a sad or angry expression) or a neutral face.The participants first see a fixation cross on the screen followed by the face stimulus appearing on one side of the cross. After this, a dot appears either on the same side as the facial expression (congruent trial) or on the opposite side (incongruent trial). By focusing on just one face, the researchers can better understand how our feelings can affect what we notice (Han & Psouni, 2025).

• Dot-probe task using erotic stimuli: A review by Castro-Calvo et al. (2021) discusses the variation of dot-probe task by utilizing sexual/erotic stimuli. The widespread availability and accessibility of pornography through multiple devices have contributed to a significant rise in its usage over the years. This has raised concerns about porn addiction and negative mental health impacts, prompting researchers to use specific methods like the dot-probe task to investigate these cognitive processes and implications. Studies have used a simple design to complex designs with explicit, erotic, and neutral stimuli. The presentation times were also varied (e.g., 150 ms, 500 ms, etc). This variation has helped understand the attentional biases that occur in individuals with Problematic Pornography Use (PPU).

• Facial Dot-probe task: The facial dot-probe tasks specifically focus on the presentation of facial stimuli (emotional faces) as opposed to word stimuli. It was found that socially anxious individuals show an attentional bias towards negative faces, but no significant bias towards positive faces were observed (Bantin et al., 2016).

• Dot-probe task with sleep-related stimuli: A study used a variation of the dot-probe task to investigate attention bias in people with primary insomnia. The researchers utilized targeted words related to sleep to see if those with insomnia react faster to them compared to neutral words, highlighting how their attention might be biased towards things that relate to their sleep issues (MacMahon et al., 2006).

• Attention-control training: This is a variation of the dot-probe task that involves participants with PTSD being exposed to both threat-related words (e.g., "death") and neutral words (e.g., "chair"). This is a training model adapted to direct attention towards the threat-related stimuli by placing the target probe behind the threat word 50% of the time. This helps to recalibrate the participant’s threat-monitoring system by redirecting their attention towards threatening stimuli instead of allowing excessive hypervigilance or avoidance of threat (Metcalf et al., 2022).

Key Cognitive Functions in the Dot-Probe Paradigm

The dot-probe paradigm involves the engagement of multiple cognitive functions. Discussed below are key processes involved:

• Selective Attention: Selective attention determines which stimulus captures the attention of the participant and thus helps in analyzing any attentional biases related to the different types of information presented to the participants. A method to collect selective attention data is through eye tracking (Zhang et al., 2021).
• Working Memory (WM): Working memory involves temporarily storing and manipulating information. WM influences attention allocation in the dot-probe task by modulating the allocation of attention toward external cues, particularly those with threatening features. This is especially in the case of individuals with high trait anxiety (Yao et al., 2019).
• Perception: The dot-probe paradigm relies on the participant's ability to quickly perceive and differentiate between two stimuli. It also determines where attentional focus is directed (Shi et al., 2022).
• Response Inhibition: Response inhibition is an essential cognitive function in dot-probe tasks as participants need to inhibit their automatic response to certain stimuli when it appears (Vogel et al., 2019).

Applying the Dot-Probe Paradigm in Research

The dot-probe paradigm has become a classic experiment in research, and its versatility extends across various fields. Below are a few examples highlighting its applications.

• Clinical Psychology: As discussed in previous sections, the dot-probe task has been widely used to examine various clinical psychology concerns, including various forms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Another notable application is its use in studying eating disorders. In a study assessing attention bias in individuals with disordered eating behaviors toward food-related stimuli, the dot-probe task was used for that exact reason. It was further investigated whether cognitive reappraisal (CR) could reduce food attention bias in participants. Findings indicated that CR can effectively alter attentional focus away from high-calorie food stimuli (Lev-Ari et al., 2021).

• Neurology: Dot-probe tasks have been widely used in the field of neurology. For instance, a study utilized the dot-probe task to explore the neural processes underlying attentional bias in fibromyalgia (FM) patients. The task was performed during an electroencephalogram (EEG) recording and findings showed that FM patients allocated less attentional resources to the task and demonstrated increased emotional processing of the stimuli (Cardoso et al., 2021).

• Public Health: A study by Zhao et al. (2022) utilized the dot-probe task to investigate the relationship between problematic social media use, negative emotions, and attentional bias towards social media -related cues. The researchers found that attentional bias towards social media-related cues was positively correlated with the severity of problematic social media use, anxiety, depression, and social fear.

• Addiction Studies: A study examined attentional bias to cigarette-related cues among daily smokers and further explored how this attentional bias is linked to smoking reinforcement and cigarette dependence. Findings suggested attentional bias modification (ABM) to be a potential intervention for addiction (Yang et al., 2022).

• Virtual Reality (VR): The dot-probe task was integrated in a study as a tool to measure attentional bias in individuals undergoing VR-based attentional bias modification (ABM) training. The task was implemented both before and after the ABM training. However, the findings revealed that there were no observed changes in attentional bias post training (Ma et al., 2020).

• Military & Training: As mentioned previously, the attention-control training variation of the dot-probe task was used in a study to examine threat-related attentional biases experienced by military personnel. Findings indicated that attention-control training significantly reduced PTSD symptoms and improved work and social functioning (Metcalf et al., 2022).

• Comparative Psychology: A study aimed to assess the psychological well-being of adult female long-tailed macaques after anesthesia by employing the dot-probe task. It was found that the monkeys showed threat vigilance prior to anesthesia, but switched to the avoidance of threatening stimuli immediately after anesthesia. Their attention bias returned to a state of threat vigilance by the third day post-anesthesia. This indicates that the task can effectively measure psychological changes in the macaques related to their experience of anesthesia. The dot-probe task has been utilized in studies on bonobos and chimpanzees too! (Cassidy et al., 2021)

Conclusion

The Dot-Probe Paradigm stands as a powerful tool for examining attentional processes and other cognitive functions. Since its development, researchers have continuously refined and modified the paradigm to understand attention processes in various fields and contexts. As research progresses, the dot-probe paradigm will likely continue to evolve and contribute to a deeper understanding of human cognition and behaviour!

References

Amin, Z., Todd Constable, R., & Canli, T. (2004). Attentional bias for valenced stimuli as a function of personality in the dot-probe task. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(1), 15–23.

Asmundson, G. J., Carleton, N. R., & Ekong, J. (2005). Dot-probe evaluation of selective attentional processing of pain cues in patients with chronic headaches. Pain, 114(1), 250-256.

Bantin, T., Stevens, S., Gerlach, A. L., & Hermann, C. (2016). What does the facial dot-probe task tell us about attentional processes in social anxiety? A systematic review. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 50, 40–51.

Cardoso, S., Fernandes, C., & Barbosa, F. (2021). Emotional and attentional bias in fibromyalgia: A pilot ERP study of the dot-probe task. Neurology and Therapy, 10(2), 1079–1093.

Cassidy, L. C., Bethell, E. J., Brockhausen, R. R., Boretius, S., Treue, S., & Pfefferle, D. (2021). The Dot-probe attention bias task as a method to assess psychological well-being after anesthesia: A study with adult female long-tailed macaques (macaca fascicularis). European Surgical Research, 64(1), 37–53.

Castro-Calvo, J., Cervigón-Carrasco, V., Ballester-Arnal, R., & Giménez-García, C. (2021). Cognitive processes related to problematic pornography use (PPU): A systematic review of experimental studies. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 13, 100345.

Dear, B. F., Sharpe, L., Nicholas, M. K., & Refshauge, K. (2011). The psychometric properties of the dot-probe paradigm when used in pain-related attentional bias research. The Journal of Pain, 12(12), 1247–1254.

Eysenck, M.W., MacLeod, C. & Mathews, A. Cognitive functioning and anxiety. Psychol. Res 49, 189–195 (1987).

Han, G., & Psouni, E. (2025). Primed into security: can attachment security priming affect attachment-related biases on early attention?. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1-13.

Kemps, E., Tiggemann, M., & Hollitt, S. (2014). Biased attentional processing of food cues and modification in obese individuals. Health Psychology, 33(11), 1391.

Lev-Ari, L., Kreiner, H., & Avni, O. (2021). Food attention bias: Appetite comes with eating. Journal of Eating Disorders, 9(1).

Ma, L., Kruijt, A.-W., Ek, A.-K., Åbyhammar, G., Furmark, T., Andersson, G., & Carlbring, P. (2020). Seeking neutral: A VR-based person-identity-matching task for attentional bias modification – a randomized controlled experiment. Internet Interventions, 21, 100334.

Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Aging and attentional biases for emotional faces. Psychological Science, 14(5), 409–415.

MacMahon, K. M., Broomfield, N. M., & Espie, C. A. (2006). Attention bias for sleep-related stimuli in primary insomnia and delayed sleep phase syndrome using the dot-probe task. Sleep, 29(11), 1420-1427.

Metcalf, O., O’Donnell, M. L., Forbes, D., Bar‐Haim, Y., Hodson, S., Bryant, R. A., McFarlane, A. C., Morton, D., Poerio, L., Naim, R., & Varker, T. (2022). Attention‐control training as an early intervention for veterans leaving the military: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 35(4), 1291–1299.

Morales, S., Fu, X., & Pérez-Edgar, K. E. (2016). A developmental neuroscience perspective on affect-biased attention. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 21, 26-41.

Peckham, A. D., McHugh, R. K., & Otto, M. W. (2010). A meta-analysis of the magnitude of biased attention in depression. Depression and Anxiety, 27(12), 1135–1142.

Shi, J., Ding, N., & Jiang, F. (2022). The influence of color and direction on the perceptual processing of standard evacuation signs and the effect of attention bias. Fire Safety Journal, 132, 103638.

Starzomska, M. (2017). Applications of the dot probe task in attentional bias research in eating disorders: A review. Psicológica, 38, 283–346.

Sutton, T. M., & Altarriba, J. (2011). The automatic activation and perception of emotion in word processing: Evidence from a modified dot probe paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(6), 736-747.

Tull, M. T., McDermott, M. J., Gratz, K. L., Coffey, S. F., & Lejuez, C. W. (2011). Cocaine‐related attentional bias following trauma cue exposure among cocaine-dependent in‐patients with and without post‐traumatic stress disorder. Addiction, 106(10), 1810–1818.

van Rooijen, R., Ploeger, A., & Kret, M. E. (2017). The dot-probe task to measure emotional attention: A suitable measure in comparative studies? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(6), 1686–1717.

Vervoort, L., Braun, M., De Schryver, M., Naets, T., Koster, E. H., & Braet, C. (2021). A pictorial dot probe task to assess food-related attentional bias in youth with and without obesity: Overview of indices and evaluation of their reliability. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.

Vogel, B., Trotzke, P., Steins-Loeber, S., Schäfer, G., Stenger, J., de Zwaan, M., Brand, M., & Müller, A. (2019). An experimental examination of cognitive processes and response inhibition in patients seeking treatment for buying-shopping disorder. PLOS ONE, 14(3).

Wirth, B. E., & Wentura, D. (2020). It occurs after all: Attentional bias towards happy faces in the dot-probe task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(5), 2463–2481.

Wirth, M. M., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2007). Basal testosterone moderates responses to anger faces in humans. Physiology & Behavior, 90(2–3), 496–505.

Yang, M.-J., Borges, A. M., Emery, N. N., & Leyro, T. M. (2022). Trial-level bias score versus mean bias score: Comparison of the reliability and external validity using the dot-probe task among daily smokers. Addictive Behaviors, 135, 107456.

Yao, N., Rodriguez, M. A., He, M., & Qian, M. (2019). The influence of visual working memory representations on attention bias to threat in individuals with high trait anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 10(4).

Zhang, Y.-B., Wang, P.-C., Ma, Y., Yang, X.-Y., Meng, F.-Q., Broadley, S. A., Sun, J., & Li, Z.-J. (2021). Using eye movements in the dot-probe paradigm to investigate attention bias in illness anxiety disorder. World Journal of Psychiatry, 11(3), 73–86.

Zhao, J., Zhou, Z., Sun, B., Zhang, X., Zhang, L., & Fu, S. (2022). Attentional bias is associated with negative emotions in problematic users of social media as measured by a dot-probe task. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 16938.