Attentional bias to pain-related information: A meta-analysis

Geert Crombez, Dimitri M. L. Van Ryckeghem, Christopher. Eccleston, Stefaan Van Damme

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 105 Citations

Abstract

This meta-analysis investigated whether attentional bias, that is, the preferential allocation of attention to information that is related to pain, is a ubiquitous phenomenon. We also investigated whether attentional bias effects are related to the methodological quality of the study, to procedural differences in their measurement, or to individual differences in pain severity, pain-related fear, anxiety, and depression. Results indicated that individuals who experience chronic pain (n = 1023) display an attentional bias towards pain-related words or pictures, but this bias was of a small effect size (d = 0.134), and did not differ from that in control groups (d = 0.082; n = 1398). No evidence was found for an attentional bias towards pain-related words and pictures for acute pain (d = 0.049), procedural pain (d = 0.142), and experimental pain (d = 0.069). However, research in which attentional bias towards signals of impending experimental pain in healthy volunteers was investigated, revealed an attentional bias of medium effect size (d = 0.676). Moderator analyses in the chronic pain group identified important procedural variables that affected the presence and magnitude of an attentional bias towards pain-related words and pictures, that is, type and exposure time of pain-related information. None of the individual difference variables affected the magnitude of the attentional bias. Implications of current findings and future directions are discussed.
LanguageEnglish
Pages497-510
JournalPain
Volume154
Issue number4
DOIs
StatusPublished - Apr 2013

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Pain
Individuality
Chronic Pain
Attentional Bias
Acute Pain
Fear
Healthy Volunteers
Anxiety
Depression
Control Groups
Research

Cite this

Crombez, G., Van Ryckeghem, D. M. L., Eccleston, C., & Van Damme, S. (2013). Attentional bias to pain-related information: A meta-analysis. DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.11.013

Attentional bias to pain-related information : A meta-analysis. / Crombez, Geert; Van Ryckeghem, Dimitri M. L.; Eccleston, Christopher.; Van Damme, Stefaan.

In: Pain, Vol. 154, No. 4, 04.2013, p. 497-510.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Crombez, G, Van Ryckeghem, DML, Eccleston, C & Van Damme, S 2013, 'Attentional bias to pain-related information: A meta-analysis' Pain, vol. 154, no. 4, pp. 497-510. DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.11.013
Crombez G, Van Ryckeghem DML, Eccleston C, Van Damme S. Attentional bias to pain-related information: A meta-analysis. Pain. 2013 Apr;154(4):497-510. Available from, DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.11.013
Crombez, Geert ; Van Ryckeghem, Dimitri M. L. ; Eccleston, Christopher. ; Van Damme, Stefaan. / Attentional bias to pain-related information : A meta-analysis. In: Pain. 2013 ; Vol. 154, No. 4. pp. 497-510
@article{0a37096e9a4f468abd53415b4ce6d335,
title = "Attentional bias to pain-related information: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "This meta-analysis investigated whether attentional bias, that is, the preferential allocation of attention to information that is related to pain, is a ubiquitous phenomenon. We also investigated whether attentional bias effects are related to the methodological quality of the study, to procedural differences in their measurement, or to individual differences in pain severity, pain-related fear, anxiety, and depression. Results indicated that individuals who experience chronic pain (n = 1023) display an attentional bias towards pain-related words or pictures, but this bias was of a small effect size (d = 0.134), and did not differ from that in control groups (d = 0.082; n = 1398). No evidence was found for an attentional bias towards pain-related words and pictures for acute pain (d = 0.049), procedural pain (d = 0.142), and experimental pain (d = 0.069). However, research in which attentional bias towards signals of impending experimental pain in healthy volunteers was investigated, revealed an attentional bias of medium effect size (d = 0.676). Moderator analyses in the chronic pain group identified important procedural variables that affected the presence and magnitude of an attentional bias towards pain-related words and pictures, that is, type and exposure time of pain-related information. None of the individual difference variables affected the magnitude of the attentional bias. Implications of current findings and future directions are discussed.",
author = "Geert Crombez and {Van Ryckeghem}, {Dimitri M. L.} and Christopher. Eccleston and {Van Damme}, Stefaan",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.pain.2012.11.013",
language = "English",
volume = "154",
pages = "497--510",
journal = "Pain",
issn = "0304-3959",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Attentional bias to pain-related information

T2 - Pain

AU - Crombez,Geert

AU - Van Ryckeghem,Dimitri M. L.

AU - Eccleston,Christopher.

AU - Van Damme,Stefaan

PY - 2013/4

Y1 - 2013/4

N2 - This meta-analysis investigated whether attentional bias, that is, the preferential allocation of attention to information that is related to pain, is a ubiquitous phenomenon. We also investigated whether attentional bias effects are related to the methodological quality of the study, to procedural differences in their measurement, or to individual differences in pain severity, pain-related fear, anxiety, and depression. Results indicated that individuals who experience chronic pain (n = 1023) display an attentional bias towards pain-related words or pictures, but this bias was of a small effect size (d = 0.134), and did not differ from that in control groups (d = 0.082; n = 1398). No evidence was found for an attentional bias towards pain-related words and pictures for acute pain (d = 0.049), procedural pain (d = 0.142), and experimental pain (d = 0.069). However, research in which attentional bias towards signals of impending experimental pain in healthy volunteers was investigated, revealed an attentional bias of medium effect size (d = 0.676). Moderator analyses in the chronic pain group identified important procedural variables that affected the presence and magnitude of an attentional bias towards pain-related words and pictures, that is, type and exposure time of pain-related information. None of the individual difference variables affected the magnitude of the attentional bias. Implications of current findings and future directions are discussed.

AB - This meta-analysis investigated whether attentional bias, that is, the preferential allocation of attention to information that is related to pain, is a ubiquitous phenomenon. We also investigated whether attentional bias effects are related to the methodological quality of the study, to procedural differences in their measurement, or to individual differences in pain severity, pain-related fear, anxiety, and depression. Results indicated that individuals who experience chronic pain (n = 1023) display an attentional bias towards pain-related words or pictures, but this bias was of a small effect size (d = 0.134), and did not differ from that in control groups (d = 0.082; n = 1398). No evidence was found for an attentional bias towards pain-related words and pictures for acute pain (d = 0.049), procedural pain (d = 0.142), and experimental pain (d = 0.069). However, research in which attentional bias towards signals of impending experimental pain in healthy volunteers was investigated, revealed an attentional bias of medium effect size (d = 0.676). Moderator analyses in the chronic pain group identified important procedural variables that affected the presence and magnitude of an attentional bias towards pain-related words and pictures, that is, type and exposure time of pain-related information. None of the individual difference variables affected the magnitude of the attentional bias. Implications of current findings and future directions are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875434622&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.11.013

U2 - 10.1016/j.pain.2012.11.013

DO - 10.1016/j.pain.2012.11.013

M3 - Article

VL - 154

SP - 497

EP - 510

JO - Pain

JF - Pain

SN - 0304-3959

IS - 4

ER -