IntroductionItch is unpleasant and induces the urge to scratch. This is adaptive to remove the itch-inducing stimulus from the skin. Accordingly, itch draws attention to protect our bodily integrity. Recent studies investigated whether attention is preferentially drawn towards its location, i.e., attentional bias (AB), and also whether this bias could be changed in healthy individuals. So far, results are mixed concerning the existance of an attentional bias towards itch stimuli in healthy individuals as well as the impact of modifications. However, available studies have typically focused on conscious processing and might miss preconscious aspects of attention and potential biases at these stages.MethodsThis study included 117 healthy individuals who underwent a subliminal Attentional Bias Modification (ABM)- training for itch based on a dot-probe paradigm with itch- related pictures. Participants were randomly assigned to a training towards itch group, a training away from itch group and a control group. This was done by manipulating the itch-target congruency of the dot-probe task during a training block. Pre- and post-training assessments were regular dot-probe tasks. Exploratorily, also attentional inhibition, cognitive flexibility and itch-related cognitions were assessed. Lastly, participants received an itchy stimulus on the inner forearm before and after the ABM-training to assess potential effects on itch sensitivity.ResultsResults showed no AB towards itch across groups at baseline, i.e., pre-training, but an AB away from itch, hence, avoidance of itch, post-training. Further analyses showed that this effect was driven by an attentional bias away from itch in the control group, while there were no significant effects in the experimental groups. There was no effect on itch sensitivity.ConclusionThese findings are in line with recent studies on conscious ABM-training for itch and pain that also did not find significant training effects. Therefore, it is suggested that the field of AB might need to reconsider the current assessment of AB. Moreover, AB is probably a dynamic process that is highly dependent on current itch-related goals and relevance of itch in a specific situation. This suggests that processes probably differ in patients with chronic itch and that also ABM-training might work differently in these populations.Clinical trial registrationhttps://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NTR7561, identifier NTR7561.