Trying to Fix a Painful Problem: The Impact of Pain Control Attempts on the Attentional Prioritization of a Threatened Body Location

The Mindful Reappraisal of Pain Scale (MRPS): Validation of a New Measure of Psychological Mechanisms of Mindfulness-Based Analgesia

Objectives

Mindfulness is theorized to decrease the affective amplification of chronic pain by facilitating a shift from emotionally-laden, catastrophic pain appraisals of nociceptive input to reappraising chronic pain as an innocuous sensory signal that does not signify harm. Understanding of these hypothetical psychological mechanisms of mindfulness-based analgesia has been limited by a lack of direct measures. We conducted a series of psychometric and experimental studies to develop and validate the Mindful Reappraisal of Pain Sensations Scale (MPRS).

Methods

After item generation, we conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the MRPS in samples of opioid-treated chronic pain patients both before (n=450; n=90) and after (n=222) participating in Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE). We then examined the convergent and divergent validity of the MRPS. Finally, in data from a randomized clinical trial (n=250), the MRPS was tested as a mediator of the effects of MORE on reducing chronic pain severity.

Results

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated the single-factor structure of the MRPS. The MRPS also evidenced convergent and divergent validity. Mindfulness training through MORE significantly increased MRPS scores relative to supportive psychotherapy (F4,425.03 = 16.15, p < .001). Changes in MRPS scores statistically mediated the effect of MORE on reducing chronic pain severity through 9-month follow-up.

Conclusions

Taken together, these studies demonstrate that the MRPS is a psychometrically sound and valid measure of novel analgesic mechanisms of mindfulness including attentional disengagement from affective pain appraisals and interoceptive exposure to pain sensations.

How Pain Shapes Depression and Anxiety: A Hybrid Self-regulatory/Predictive Mind Perspective

Because many persons living with chronic pain achieve a relatively balanced lifestyle without experiencing functional disability, medical psychologists must explain the well-documented co-occurrence of pain complaints and DSM-5-disorders (including but not limited to depression and anxiety) in a significant subset of individuals. The question of differential resilience versus susceptibility has received modest theoretical and empirical attention, but remains open. In this review, I deconstruct the temporally extended pain adaptation process in order to address this vexing question, relying upon two complementary explanatory frames. The first is a motivational/cybernetic systems formulation labeled the Goal-Centered, Self-Regulatory, Automated Social Systems Psychology (GRASSP) model, erected upon feedback sensitive, goal-guided, hierarchically organized self-regulatory processes. Depression and anxiety presumably result from compromised regulatory functions undermining pain processing, goal pursuit, and everyday performance. The second perspective postulates a "Bayesian Brain"/"Predictive Mind" capable of unifying perception, action, and emotion via predictive processing. From a Bayesian perspective, predictive processing implies that our brains evolved to compare, without conscious direction, incoming environmental information against prior, model-based predictions in order to arrive at accurate perceptual representations of the world. Maladjustment results from failures of active inference. When applied to the perception of visceral information, the embodied process, termed interoceptive inference, can also yield pathogenic outcomes. The Bayesian model holds that depression and anxiety in individuals with pain result from error-prone (biased, rigid, or highly certain) prior evaluations of aversive feeling states and their relation to the external milieu. I consider how the hybrid conceptual framework advanced by the two models points to several novel and familiar avenues of intervention.

Hypervigilance for Bodily Sensations in the Back During a Movement Task in People With Chronic and Recurrent Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVES

The current study assessed the role of hypervigilance for bodily sensations in the back in long-term low back pain problems.

METHODS

People with chronic low back pain, recurrent low back pain, and no low back pain were compared on the extent to which they attended to somatosensory stimuli on the back during a movement task. To measure hypervigilance, somatosensory event-related potentials (SEPs) to task-irrelevant tactile stimuli on the back were measured when preparing movements in either a threatening or a neutral condition, indicated by a cue signaling possible pain on the back during movement or not.

RESULTS

Results showed stronger attending to stimuli on the back in the threat condition than in the neutral condition, as reflected by increased amplitude of the N96 SEP. However, this effect did not differ between groups. Similarly, for all 3 groups the amplitude of the P172 was larger for the threatening condition, suggesting a more general state of arousal resulting in increased somatosensory responsiveness. No significant associations were found between somatosensory attending to the back and theorized antecedents such as pain catastrophizing, pain-related fear, and pain vigilance.

DISCUSSION

The current study confirmed that individuals preparing a movement attended more toward somatosensory stimuli at the lower back when anticipating back pain during the movement, as measured by the N96 SEP. However, no differences were found between participants with chronic low back pain or recurrent low back pain, or the pain-free controls.

Somatosensory attending to the lower back is associated with response speed of movements signaling back pain

The present study investigated if preparing a movement that is expected to evoke pain results in hesitation to initiate the movement (i.e., avoidance) and, especially, if the allocation of attention to the threatened body part mediates such effect. To this end, healthy volunteers (N = 33) performed a postural perturbation task recruiting lower back muscles. In 'threat trials', the movement was sometimes followed by an experimental pain stimulus on the back, whereas in 'no-threat trials', a non-painful control stimulus was applied. Electroencephalography (EEG) was used to assess attending to the lower back. Specifically, somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) to task-irrelevant tactile stimuli administered to the lower back were recorded during movement preparation. Reaction times (RTs) were recorded to assess movement initiation. The results revealed faster responses and enhanced somatosensory attending to the lower back on threat trials than on no-threat trials. Importantly, the amplitude of the N95 SEP component predicted RTs and was found to partially mediate the effect of pain anticipation on movement initiation. These findings suggest that somatosensory attending might be a potential mechanism by which pain anticipation can modulate motor execution.

Winning or not losing? The impact of non-pain goal focus on attentional bias to learned pain signals

Background and aims

Insights into the nature of cognitive bias, including attentional bias to threat signals, are considered pivotal to understanding (chronic) pain and related distress. It has been put forward that attention to pain-related threat is normally dynamic and relates to the motivational state of the individual. In this experiment we aimed (i) to replicate the finding that attentional bias for pain signals in healthy participants can be reduced when a non-pain goal is pursued, and (ii) to extend this finding by taking into account the outcome focus of the non-pain goal. We hypothesised that the reduction in attentional bias for pain signals by concurrent non-pain goal pursuit would be stronger with non-pain prevention goals than with promotion goals.

Methods

Healthy university students performed an attentional bias task (i.e. spatial cueing task) containing visual cues that signalled the possible occurrence of a painful stimulus (electrocutaneous stimulus at tolerance level) or its absence, in combination with a non-pain goal task (i.e. digit naming task). The non-pain goal was either related to acquiring a positive outcome (gaining money depending on digit-naming performance; promotion goal group, n=31) or related to avoiding a negative outcome (losing money; prevention goal group, n=31). A standard attentional bias task served as the control condition (control group, n=31).

Results

Spatial cueing effects were larger for pain cues than for no-pain cues, indicating attentional bias for pain signals. The pattern of results suggests that this effect was indeed reduced in the goal groups as compared to the control group, but there was no significant group difference.

Conclusions

We found no statistically-significant evidence for the impact of non-pain goal pursuit or outcome focus on pain-related attentional bias. At best, there were indications of a reduced attentional bias for pain signals with non-pain goal pursuit that was either promotion- or prevention focused.

Implications

These data add to the small but growing body of literature on the assumed relevance of motivational context in explaining variations in attentional bias. The results trigger new questions on the nature and assessment of pain-related attentional bias, and more specifically attentional bias for fear-conditioned pain signals (versus safety signals), from a motivational perspective.

Emotional and Motivational Pain Processing: Current State of Knowledge and Perspectives in Translational Research

Pain elicits fear and anxiety and promotes escape, avoidance, and adaptive behaviors that are essential for survival. When pain persists, motivational priority and attention shift to pain-related information. Such a shift often results in impaired functionality, leading to maladaptive pain-related fear and anxiety and escape and avoidance behaviors. Neuroimaging studies in chronic pain patients have established that brain activity, especially in cortical and mesolimbic regions, is different from activity observed during acute pain in control subjects. In this review, we discuss the psychophysiological and neuronal factors that may be associated with the transition to chronic pain. We review information from human studies on neural circuits involved in emotional and motivational pain processing and how these circuits are altered in chronic pain conditions. We then highlight findings from animal research that can increase our understanding of the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying emotional-motivational pain processing in the brain. Finally, we discuss how translational approaches incorporating results from both human and animal investigations may aid in accelerating the discovery of therapies.

Do patients with chronic unilateral orofacial pain due to a temporomandibular disorder show increased attending to somatosensory input at the painful side of the jaw?

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic orofacial pain due to temporomandibular disorders (TMD) display alterations in somatosensory processing at the jaw, such as amplified perception of tactile stimuli, but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. This study investigated one possible explanation, namely hypervigilance, and tested if TMD patients with unilateral pain showed increased attending to somatosensory input at the painful side of the jaw.

METHODS

TMD patients with chronic unilateral orofacial pain (n = 20) and matched healthy volunteers (n = 20) performed a temporal order judgment (TOJ) task indicated which one of two tactile stimuli, presented on each side of the jaw, they had perceived first. TOJ methodology allows examining spatial bias in somatosensory processing speed. Furthermore, after each block of trials, the participants rated the perceived intensity of tactile stimuli separately for both sides of the jaw. Finally, questionnaires assessing pain catastrophizing, fear-avoidance beliefs, and pain vigilance, were completed.

RESULTS

TMD patients tended to perceive tactile stimuli at the painful jaw side as occurring earlier in time than stimuli at the non-painful side but this effect did not reach conventional levels of significance (p = .07). In the control group, tactile stimuli were perceived as occurring simultaneously. Secondary analyses indicated that the magnitude of spatial bias in the TMD group is positively associated with the extent of fear-avoidance beliefs. Overall, intensity ratings of tactile stimuli were significantly higher in the TMD group than in the control group, but there was no significant difference between the painful and non-painful jaw side in the TMD patients.

DISCUSSION

The hypothesis that TMD patients with chronic unilateral orofacial pain preferentially attend to somatosensory information at the painful side of the jaw was not statistically supported, although lack of power could not be ruled out as a reason for this. The findings are discussed within recent theories of pain-related attention.

Do Tonic Itch and Pain Stimuli Draw Attention towards Their Location?

BACKGROUND

Although itch and pain are distinct experiences, both are unpleasant, may demand attention, and interfere with daily activities. Research investigating the role of attention in tonic itch and pain stimuli, particularly whether attention is drawn to the stimulus location, is scarce.

METHODS

In the somatosensory attention task, fifty-three healthy participants were exposed to 35-second electrical itch or pain stimuli on either the left or right wrist. Participants responded as quickly as possible to visual targets appearing at the stimulated location (ipsilateral trials) or the arm without stimulation (contralateral trials). During control blocks, participants performed the visual task without stimulation. Attention allocation at the itch and pain location is inferred when responses are faster ipsilaterally than contralaterally.

RESULTS

Results did not indicate that attention was directed towards or away from the itch and pain location. Notwithstanding, participants were slower during itch and pain than during control blocks.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast with our hypotheses, no indications were found for spatial attention allocation towards the somatosensory stimuli. This may relate to dynamic shifts in attention over the time course of the tonic sensations. Our secondary finding that itch and pain interfere with task performance is in-line with attention theories of bodily perception.

No Evidence for Threat-Induced Spatial Prioritization of Somatosensory Stimulation during Pain Control Using a Synchrony Judgment Paradigm

Topical research efforts on attention to pain often take a critical look at the modulatory role of top-down factors. For instance, it has been shown that the fearful expectation of pain at a location of the body directs attention towards that body part. In addition, motivated attempts to control this pain were found to modulate this prioritization effect. Such studies have often used a temporal order judgment task, requiring participants to judge the order in which two stimuli are presented by indicating which one they perceived first. As this constitutes a forced-choice response format, such studies may be subject to response bias. The aim of the current study was to address this concern. We used a ternary synchrony judgment paradigm, in which participants judged the order in which two somatosensory stimuli occurred. Critically, participants now also had the option to give a 'simultaneous' response when they did not perceive a difference. This way we eliminated the need for guessing, and thus reduced the risk of response bias. One location was threatened with the possibility of pain in half of the trials, as predicted by an auditory cue. Additionally, half of the participants (pain control group) were encouraged to avoid pain stimuli by executing a quick button press. The other half (comparison group) performed a similar action, albeit unrelated to the occurrence of pain. Our data did not support threat-induced spatial prioritization, nor did we find evidence that pain control attempts influenced attention in any way.

Attentional bias to pain-relevant body locations: New methods, new challenges

In a recent issue of Consciousness and Cognition, Filbrich, Torta, Vanderclausen, Azanon, and Legrain (2016) commented on a paper in which we used a tactile Temporal Order Judgment (TOJ) task to show that expecting pain on a specific body location biased attention to that location (Vanden Bulcke, Crombez, Durnez, & Van Damme, 2015). Their main criticism is that the effects are likely to reflect response bias rather than genuine attentional bias. We agree that the TOJ task used may be susceptible to response bias, and welcome the authors' methodological suggestions to control for such bias. However, we feel that certain aspects of our work are misrepresented in their paper. Most importantly, we contest their argument that our instructions made the threat location task-relevant, thereby increasing risk of response bias. Further, we reply to other methodological and theoretical issues raised by these authors.

What's Coming Near? The Influence of Dynamical Visual Stimuli on Nociceptive Processing

Objects approaching us may pose a threat, and signal the need to initiate defensive behavior. Detecting these objects early is crucial to either avoid the object or prepare for contact most efficiently. This requires the construction of a coherent representation of our body, and the space closely surrounding our body, i.e. the peripersonal space. This study, with 27 healthy volunteers, investigated how the processing of nociceptive stimuli applied to the hand is influenced by dynamical visual stimuli either approaching or receding from the hand. On each trial a visual stimulus was either approaching or receding the participant's left or right hand. At different temporal delays from the onset of the visual stimulus, a nociceptive stimulus was applied either at the same or the opposite hand, so that it was presented when the visual stimulus was perceived at varying distances from the hand. Participants were asked to respond as fast as possible at which side they perceived a nociceptive stimulus. We found that reaction times were fastest when the visual stimulus appeared near the stimulated hand. Moreover, investigating the influence of the visual stimuli along the continuous spatial range (from near to far) showed that approaching lights had a stronger spatially dependent effect on nociceptive processing, compared to receding lights. These results suggest that the coding of nociceptive information in a peripersonal frame of reference may constitute a safety margin around the body that is designed to protect it from potential physical threat.

Repeated verum but not placebo acupuncture normalizes connectivity in brain regions dysregulated in chronic pain

Acupuncture, an ancient East Asian therapy, is aimed at rectifying the imbalance within the body caused by disease. Studies evaluating the efficacy of acupuncture with neuroimaging tend to concentrate on brain regions within the pain matrix, associated with acute pain. We, however, focused on the effect of repeated acupuncture treatment specifically on brain regions known to support functions dysregulated in chronic pain disorders. Transition to chronic pain is associated with increased attention to pain, emotional rumination, nociceptive memory and avoidance learning, resulting in brain connectivity changes, specifically affecting the periaqueductal gray (PAG), medial frontal cortex (MFC) and bilateral hippocampus (Hpc). We demonstrate that the PAG-MFC and PAG-Hpc connectivity in patients with chronic pain due to knee osteoarthritis indeed correlates with clinical severity scores and further show that verum acupuncture-induced improvement in pain scores (compared to sham) is related to the modulation of PAG-MFC and PAG-Hpc connectivity in the predicted direction. This study shows that repeated verum acupuncture might act by restoring the balance in the connectivity of the key pain brain regions, altering pain-related attention and memory.

From a Somatotopic to a Spatiotopic Frame of Reference for the Localization of Nociceptive Stimuli

To react efficiently to potentially threatening stimuli, we have to be able to localize these stimuli in space. In daily life we are constantly moving so that our limbs can be positioned at the opposite side of space. Therefore, a somatotopic frame of reference is insufficient to localize nociceptive stimuli. Here we investigated whether nociceptive stimuli are mapped into a spatiotopic frame of reference, and more specifically a peripersonal frame of reference, which takes into account the position of the body limbs in external space, as well as the occurrence of external objects presented near the body. Two temporal order judgment (TOJ) experiments were conducted, during which participants had to decide which of two nociceptive stimuli, one applied to either hand, had been presented first while their hands were either uncrossed or crossed over the body midline. The occurrence of the nociceptive stimuli was cued by uninformative visual cues. We found that the visual cues prioritized the perception of nociceptive stimuli applied to the hand laying in the cued side of space, irrespective of posture. Moreover, the influence of the cues was smaller when they were presented far in front of participants' hands as compared to when they were presented in close proximity. Finally, participants' temporal sensitivity was reduced by changing posture. These findings are compatible with the existence of a peripersonal frame of reference for the localization of nociceptive stimuli. This allows for the construction of a stable representation of our body and the space closely surrounding our body, enabling a quick and efficient reaction to potential physical threats.