↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Effects of context and individual predispositions on hypervigilance to pain-cues: an ERP study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Effects of context and individual predispositions on hypervigilance to pain-cues: an ERP study
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s80990
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver Dittmar, Corinna Baum, Raphaela Schneider, Stefan Lautenbacher

Abstract

Hypervigilance to pain is the automatic prioritization of pain-related compared with other stimuli. The processing of threat information is influenced by negative contexts. Therefore, we intended to explore such context effects on hypervigilance to pain-cues, taking individual differences in self-reported vigilance to pain into consideration. In all, 110 healthy subjects viewed task-irrelevant emotional facial expressions (anger, happy, neutral, and pain) overlaid in half of the trials with a fine grid. The instructed task was to indicate the presence/absence of this grid. A threatening context was established by applying electrical stimuli slightly below pain-threshold. Using scores of Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire, the sample was divided into high vs low pain vigilant subjects. Reaction times and event-related brain potentials were recorded. No distinct attentional processing of pain faces (based on the event-related brain potentials) was observed as a function of high levels of self-reported vigilance to pain and contextual threat induction. High pain vigilant subjects showed generally enhanced processing of emotional and neutral faces as indicated by parameters of early (early posterior negativity) and late (late positive complex) processing stages. This enhancement was abolished when electro-stimuli were presented. Contextual threat does not enhance the attentional capture of pain-cues when they are presented concurrently with competing task demands. The study could, however, replicate a generally enhanced attentional processing of emotional cues in high pain vigilant subjects. This underpins that hypervigilance to pain is related to changes in emotional processing.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Researcher 3 11%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Engineering 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 3 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,791
of 1,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,293
of 276,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#27
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.