172 research outputs found
Investigating pain-related cognitive biases using ABIB-VR paradigm
No full textThis protocol has been registered and approved by the Ethical committee of Maastricht University (Number: OZL_249_20_02_2022_S1_A2).
Pain theories propose cognitive biases (CB) to be pivotal in the development and maintenance of chronic pain (Pincus & Morley, 2001; Todd et al., 2015) and different cognitive biases interactively lead to poor pain outcomes (Pincus & Morley, 2001; Todd, Sharpe, Colagiuri, & Khatibi, 2016; Van Ryckeghem, Noel, Sharpe, Pincus, & Van Damme, 2019; Van Ryckeghem & Vervoort, 2016). In this context, pain research has extensively studied selective attention to pain threatening information (attention bias; AB), increased threat interpretation to ambiguous pain information (interpretation bias; IB), and preferential recall to pain related information or as more threatening than initially experienced (memory bias; MB) (Van Ryckeghem, Noel, Sharpe, Pincus, & Van Damme, 2019).
There has been a number of studies investigating pain-related attention bias in the past two decades (Broadbent, Liossi, & Schoth, 2021; Crombez, Van Ryckeghem, Eccleston, & Van Damme, 2013; Jones et al., 2021; Todd, Van Ryckeghem, Sharpe, & Crombez, 2018) and recently also more interpretation bias (Schoth & Liossi, 2016). So far, there is no general agreement about the pain-related attention bias. A meta-analysis (Todd et al., 2018) showed that people suffering from chronic pain showed more pain-related attention bias compared with people in acute pain, anticipating pain, or healthy condition. However, two other related meta-analyses reported no pain status difference in attention bias toward pain information between people in chronic pain and healthy condition (Chan, Suen, Jackson, Vlaeyen, & Barry, 2020; Crombez et al., 2013). As for pain-related interpretation bias, meta-analysis study from Schoth and Liossi (2016) showed more interpretation bias toward ambiguous pain-related/illness-related information in patients with chronic pain compared to healthy people, though the number of studies is limited in this meta-analysis.
Yet, despite these positive findings and many efforts in improving paradigms to measure cognitive biases, further dedications are still needed to enhance the theory-driven assessment of pain-related cognitive biases using ecological valid paradigms. By far, the majority of the related studies measured cognitive biases toward pain by means of computer tasks (e.g., dot-probe tasks) using response time or self-reported measures, and symbolic pain stimuli (e.g., words, pictures) were commonly used to characterize pain stimuli, which may lack validity to induce the real sensational pain feeling. On the other side, pain-related cognitive biases were usually measured in separate task paradigms, which may increase the dissimilarity from the lab setting to the actual pain-related events, considering those cognitive biases can happen at the same time. Thus, more efforts are needed to develop theory-driven assessments using innovative paradigms with higher ecological validity.
Finally, early accounts on pain processing indicate that pain-related interpretation bias and attention bias may be strongly intertwined (Pincus & Morley, 2001), and more recent theories suggest that the impact of each bias in isolation may be different than their combined effect (Todd et al., 2015; Van Ryckeghem et al., 2019). As prior research suggested, endorsement of pain-related interpretation was significantly correlated with more attention bias toward sensory-pain words in healthy people (Schoth, Parry, & Liossi, 2018). However, such finding was not always consistent. A follow-up study further explored the interrelations between various pain-related cognitive biases, while no evidence supported a significant relation between these two biases, even though similar experimental stimuli and task paradigms were employed (Schoth, Beaney, Broadbent, Zhang, & Liossi, 2018). More recently a study also reported pain-related attention bias was not interrelated with interpretation bias towards bodily threat and social situations in adolescents with varying pain levels (Kavallari & Lau, 2022).
To address these inadequacies, the current study aims to provide an initial test of a newly developed ABIB-VR paradigm for the assessment of pain-related attention bias and interpretation bias. The interrelation between pain-related cognitive biases (i.e., pain-related attention and interpretation bias) will also be investigated
Do we perceive sensations inside and outside of our body differently? Perceptual, emotional, and behavioral differences between visceral and somatic sensation, discomfort, and pain
Full text linkBackground
Experimental research evaluating differences between the visceral and somatic stimulation is limited to pain and typically uses different induction methods for visceral and somatic stimulation (e.g., rectal balloon distention vs. tactile hand stimulation). Our study aimed to compare differences in response time, intensity, unpleasantness, and threat between identical electrical visceral and somatic stimulations at both painful and non-painful perceptual thresholds.
Methods
Electrical stimulation was applied to the wrist and distal esophagus in 20 healthy participants. A double pseudorandom staircase determined perceptual thresholds of Sensation, Discomfort, and Pain for the somatic and visceral stimulations, separately. Stimulus reaction time (ms, via button press), and intensity, unpleasantness, and threat ratings were recorded after each stimulus. General linear mixed models compared differences in the four outcomes by stimulation type, threshold, and the stimulation type-by-threshold interaction. Sigmoidal maximum effect models evaluated differences in outcomes across all delivered stimulation intensities.
Key Results
Overall, visceral stimulations were perceived as more intense, threatening, and unpleasant compared to somatic stimulations, but participants responded faster to somatic stimulations. There was no significant interaction effect, but planned contrasts demonstrated differences at individual thresholds. Across all delivered intensities, higher intensity stimulations were needed to reach the half-maximum effect of self-reported intensity, unpleasantness, and threat ratings in the visceral domain.
Conclusions and Inferences
Differences exist between modalities for both non-painful and painful sensations. These findings may have implications for translating paradigms and behavioral treatments from the somatic domain to the visceral domain, though future research in larger clinical samples is needed
Pain is not over when the needle ends : the role of child attention to pain and parental pain attending behaviour for child pain memory
No full textMotor action changes pain perception: a sensory attenuation paradigm in the context of pain
Full text linkA large body of evidence indicates how pain affects motor control, yet the way the motor system influences pain perception remains unclear. We present 2 experiments that investigated sensory attenuation of pain implementing a 2-alternative forced choice paradigm. Particularly, healthy participants received painful stimuli on a moving and nonmoving hand during the execution or the preparation of reaching motor actions. At the end of each trial, they indicated on which hand they perceived the stimulus stronger. The point of subjective equality was obtained to measure sensory attenuation. The intensity (experiment 1) and the threat value (experiment 2) of the pain stimuli were manipulated between-subjects to examine their impact on sensory attenuation. Results of experiment 1 (N = 68) revealed that executing a motor action attenuates pain processing in the moving hand. Sensory attenuation during motor preparation alone occurred with stronger stimulus intensities. Sensory attenuation was not affected by the intensity of the pain stimuli. Results of experiment 2 (N = 79) replicated the phenomenon of sensory attenuation of pain during motor action execution. However, sensory attenuation was not affected by the threat value of pain. Together these findings indicate that executing, but not preparing, a motor action affects pain processing in that body part. No significant associations were found between sensory attenuation indices and inhibitory control abilities or pain catastrophizing, vigilance and rumination. These results provide insight into the inhibitory effects of motor actions on pain processing, suggesting that pain perception is a dynamic experience susceptible to individuals' actions in the environment.sponsorship: These studies were funded by the FWO grant (no. G000518N) awarded to S. Van Damme, A. Meulders, and D.M. Torta. E.A. Pinto and S. Van Damme designed the studies. D.M.L. van Ryckeghem programmed the studies. E.A. Pinto and A. Claus conducted data collection. E.A. Pinto performed the analyses and wrote the article. All the authors contributed with valuable feedbacks on the article. (FWO grant|G000518N)status: Publishe
Assessment and Measurement in Health Psychology
No full textpeer reviewedSound assessment and measurement is at the heart of every discipline, including health
psychology. Within the current chapter, we address several key issues of assessment and
measurement in health psychology. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of commonly
used methodologies in health psychology research and clinic, including questionnaire
assessment and ecological momentary assessment, as well as potential pitfalls in using these
assessment methods. Next, we discuss three pivotal features of assessment (i.e. reliability,
validity, and responsiveness) and their importance for assessment of health psychological
constructs. Last, we discuss some examples of tools to assess health outcomes in research and
evidence-based practice as well as future directions in the field of health psychology
assessment
General hypervigilance in Fibromyalgia: one swallow does not make a summer
Full text linkpeer reviewe
The interference of pain with task performance: Increasing ecological validity in research
Full text linkpeer reviewe
- …
