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

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 11; no. 6; p. e0156648
• Main Authors: Durnez, Wouter, Van Damme, Stefaan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 07.06.2016; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Adult; Anticipation, Psychological; Attention; Attention (Psychology); Biology and Life Sciences; Causes of; Engineering and Technology; Experiments; Female; Health psychology; Humans; Hypotheses; Hypothesis testing; Male; Medicine and Health Sciences; Methods; Pain; Pain - psychology; Pain Management; Physiological aspects; Predictive control; Psychological aspects; Research and Analysis Methods; Response bias; Risk reduction; Self Report; Skin; Social Sciences; Somatosensory stimuli; Space Perception; Stimuli; Studies; Temporal variations; Threats; Touch Perception; Visual Perception; Young Adult; Belgium
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156648

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.