scholarly journals A role for attentional bias in cognitive deficits in chronic pain?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Hazel Godfrey

<p>This thesis extends current understanding of cognitive deficits in people with chronic pain, specifically those related to attention. Researchers have proposed that attentional capacity is allocated to pain sensation, and away from current tasks and goals, leading to broad cognitive deficits (deficit-view). However, an attentional bias to pain-related information has also been observed in people with chronic pain, suggesting that attention is motivated towards information in the environment that is pain-related, and away from information that is not. Such an attentional bias away from information not related to pain may contribute to the cognitive deficits observed on tasks using neutral stimuli (motivated attention hypothesis). In testing the deficit-view and motivated attention accounts of cognitive deficits in chronic pain, I focused on how people attend to rapidly presented information (temporal attention) and the ability to control attention in the face of distraction.  To assess how chronic pain affects temporal attention, I used a phenomenon known as the attentional blink, which is a failure to detect a second target that appears soon after a first. Participants viewed a stream of briefly displayed words in which two target words (indicated by their colour) were embedded, with a manipulation of the time between the first and second target. They were required to report the two targets. In one experiment the first target was either pain-related or neutral (to assess how pain-relatedness affects the induction of the blink), and in other experiments this manipulation was applied to the second target (to assess how pain-relatedness affects how targets overcome the blink).   In undergraduate participants, both induction and overcoming of the attentional blink was modulated by pain-relatedness. I then compared the effects of manipulating the second target in people with and without chronic pain. If people with chronic pain have general deficits in temporal attention, a deeper attentional blink (relative to control participants) for both kinds of targets should be observed. If motivated attention describes processing in people with chronic pain, a shallower attentional blink for pain related targets than neutral targets (an attentional bias) should be observed. Critically, this bias should be larger in participants with chronic pain. Contrary to both the deficit and motivated attention views, the attentional blink in participants with chronic pain did not differ from that in controls for either pain-related or neutral targets. Furthermore, neither group showed an attentional bias for pain-related targets, and a follow-up experiment failed to replicate the attentional bias observed in undergraduate students as well. Collectively, these findings suggested that attentional bias, as assessed by modulation of the attentional blink, was not reliable. A stronger test of the deficit-view and motivated attention hypothesis was needed. I shifted focus to another attentional domain, the control of distraction.  To assess how chronic pain affects attentional control, I used an emotional distraction task, in which participants identified a target letter in an array that flanked irrelevant distractor images that were either intact or scrambled. Intact images depicted either extreme threat to body-tissue, or benign scenes. Distraction is indicated by slowing on intact relative to scrambled distractor trials. If people with chronic pain have general deficits in attentional control, they should show greater distraction from both kinds of images (relative to controls). If motivated attention describes processing in people with chronic pain, greater distraction from body-threat images than neutral images (relative to controls) should be observed. While all participants were more distracted by images depicting extreme threat to body-tissue, people with chronic pain were not more distracted than control participants for either image type. Findings fail to support either a deficit or motivated attention view of attentional control in chronic pain.  Although these experiments do not provide evidence that chronic pain affects attentional processing, across experiments people with chronic pain reported that they experience deficits in attention, and they showed behavioural evidence of psychomotor slowing. These findings suggest that, as is repeatedly reported in the literature, people in chronic pain feel like they have attentional deficits, and that some aspects of cognitive and/or motor processing are impacted. Careful consideration is given to what specific cognitive functions might be impaired in chronic pain. The outcome of this discussion suggests pertinent research directions to further understanding of cognition in chronic pain experience.</p>

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Hazel Godfrey

<p>This thesis extends current understanding of cognitive deficits in people with chronic pain, specifically those related to attention. Researchers have proposed that attentional capacity is allocated to pain sensation, and away from current tasks and goals, leading to broad cognitive deficits (deficit-view). However, an attentional bias to pain-related information has also been observed in people with chronic pain, suggesting that attention is motivated towards information in the environment that is pain-related, and away from information that is not. Such an attentional bias away from information not related to pain may contribute to the cognitive deficits observed on tasks using neutral stimuli (motivated attention hypothesis). In testing the deficit-view and motivated attention accounts of cognitive deficits in chronic pain, I focused on how people attend to rapidly presented information (temporal attention) and the ability to control attention in the face of distraction.  To assess how chronic pain affects temporal attention, I used a phenomenon known as the attentional blink, which is a failure to detect a second target that appears soon after a first. Participants viewed a stream of briefly displayed words in which two target words (indicated by their colour) were embedded, with a manipulation of the time between the first and second target. They were required to report the two targets. In one experiment the first target was either pain-related or neutral (to assess how pain-relatedness affects the induction of the blink), and in other experiments this manipulation was applied to the second target (to assess how pain-relatedness affects how targets overcome the blink).   In undergraduate participants, both induction and overcoming of the attentional blink was modulated by pain-relatedness. I then compared the effects of manipulating the second target in people with and without chronic pain. If people with chronic pain have general deficits in temporal attention, a deeper attentional blink (relative to control participants) for both kinds of targets should be observed. If motivated attention describes processing in people with chronic pain, a shallower attentional blink for pain related targets than neutral targets (an attentional bias) should be observed. Critically, this bias should be larger in participants with chronic pain. Contrary to both the deficit and motivated attention views, the attentional blink in participants with chronic pain did not differ from that in controls for either pain-related or neutral targets. Furthermore, neither group showed an attentional bias for pain-related targets, and a follow-up experiment failed to replicate the attentional bias observed in undergraduate students as well. Collectively, these findings suggested that attentional bias, as assessed by modulation of the attentional blink, was not reliable. A stronger test of the deficit-view and motivated attention hypothesis was needed. I shifted focus to another attentional domain, the control of distraction.  To assess how chronic pain affects attentional control, I used an emotional distraction task, in which participants identified a target letter in an array that flanked irrelevant distractor images that were either intact or scrambled. Intact images depicted either extreme threat to body-tissue, or benign scenes. Distraction is indicated by slowing on intact relative to scrambled distractor trials. If people with chronic pain have general deficits in attentional control, they should show greater distraction from both kinds of images (relative to controls). If motivated attention describes processing in people with chronic pain, greater distraction from body-threat images than neutral images (relative to controls) should be observed. While all participants were more distracted by images depicting extreme threat to body-tissue, people with chronic pain were not more distracted than control participants for either image type. Findings fail to support either a deficit or motivated attention view of attentional control in chronic pain.  Although these experiments do not provide evidence that chronic pain affects attentional processing, across experiments people with chronic pain reported that they experience deficits in attention, and they showed behavioural evidence of psychomotor slowing. These findings suggest that, as is repeatedly reported in the literature, people in chronic pain feel like they have attentional deficits, and that some aspects of cognitive and/or motor processing are impacted. Careful consideration is given to what specific cognitive functions might be impaired in chronic pain. The outcome of this discussion suggests pertinent research directions to further understanding of cognition in chronic pain experience.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 1046-1053
Author(s):  
Hazel K. Godfrey ◽  
Amy T. Walsh ◽  
Ronald Fischer ◽  
Gina M. Grimshaw

Cognitive deficits in chronic pain are often attributed to difficulties in attentional control. According to the deficit view, these difficulties stem from a reduction in attentional capacity driven by attentional focus on pain experience; alternatively, according to the motivated-attention view, attentional biases toward pain-relevant threats in the environment reduce attention available for everyday tasks and goals. We tested both accounts using a task in which 72 people with chronic pain and 72 without chronic pain performed a simple perceptual task while attempting to ignore pain-relevant images of body mutilations or neutral scenes. They also completed a common test of attentional control. Although people with chronic pain reported subjective difficulty with attentional control and were slower on both tasks, groups did not differ on behavioral measures of attentional control. Findings suggest that attentional control may not be an optimal target for interventions intended to improve cognitive function in chronic pain.


2019 ◽  
pp. 204946371986687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahdi Mazidi ◽  
Mohsen Dehghani ◽  
Louise Sharpe ◽  
Behrooz Dolatshahi ◽  
Seyran Ranjbar ◽  
...  

Introduction: This study investigated the time course of attention to pain and examined the moderating effect of attentional control in the relationship between pain catastrophizing and attentional bias in chronic pain patients. Methods: A total of 28 patients with chronic pain and 29 pain-free individuals observed pictures of pain, happy and neutral facial expressions while their gaze behaviour was recorded. Pain intensity and duration, anxiety, depression, stress, attentional control and pain catastrophizing were assessed by questionnaires. Results: In all subjects, the pattern of attention for pain faces was characterized by initial vigilance, followed by avoidance. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of orientation towards the stimuli, the duration of first fixation, the average duration of fixation or number of fixations on the pain stimuli. Attentional control moderated the relationship between catastrophizing and overall dwell time for happy faces in pain patients, indicating that those with high attentional control and high catastrophizing focused more on happy faces, whereas the reverse was true for those with low attentional control. Conclusion: This study supported the vigilance–avoidance pattern of attention to painful facial expressions and a moderation effect of attentional control in the association between pain catastrophizing and attentional bias to happy faces among pain patients.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Perone ◽  
David Vaughn Becker ◽  
Joshua M. Tybur

Multiple studies report that disgust-eliciting stimuli are perceived as salient and subsequently capture selective attention. In the current study, we aimed to better understand the nature of temporal attentional biases toward disgust-eliciting stimuli and to investigate the extent to which these biases are sensitive to contextual and trait-level pathogen avoidance motives. Participants (N=116) performed in an Emotional Attentional Blink (EAB) task in which task-irrelevant disgust-eliciting, fear-eliciting, or neutral images preceded a target by 200, 500, or 800 milliseconds (i.e., lag two, five and eight respectively). They did so twice - once while not exposed to an odor, and once while exposed to either an odor that elicited disgust or an odor that did not - and completed a measure of disgust sensitivity. Results indicate that disgust-eliciting visual stimuli produced a greater attentional blink than neutral visual stimuli at lag two and a greater attentional blink than fear-eliciting visual stimuli at both lag two and at lag five. Neither the odor manipulations nor individual differences measures moderated this effect. We propose that visual attention is engaged for a longer period of time following disgust-eliciting stimuli because covert processes automatically initiate the evaluation of pathogen threats. The fact that state and trait pathogen avoidance do not influence this temporal attentional bias suggests that early attentional processing of pathogen cues is initiated independent from the context in which such cues are perceived.


2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (8) ◽  
pp. 109-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. P. Loach ◽  
M. Tombu ◽  
J. K. Tsotsos

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 556-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary H. MacLean ◽  
Karen M. Arnell

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maartje Schoorl ◽  
Peter Putman ◽  
Steven Van Der Werff ◽  
A.J. Willem Van Der Does

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document