Taking a break in response to pain : an experimental investigation of the effects of interruptions by pain on subsequent activity resumption

Abstract Background and aims Interrupting ongoing activities with the intention to resume them again later is a natural response to pain. However, such interruptions might have negative consequences for the subsequent resumption and performance of the interrupted activity. Activity interruptions by pain may be more impairing than interruptions by non-painful stimuli, and also be subjectively experienced as such. These effects might be more pronounced in people high in pain catastrophizing. These hypotheses were investigated in two experiments. Methods In Experiment 1, healthy volunteers (n = 24) performed an ongoing task requiring a sequence of joystick movements. Occasionally, they received either a painful electrocutaneous or a non-painful vibrotactile stimulus, followed by suspension of the ongoing task and temporary engagement in a different task (interruption task). After performing the interruption task for 30 s, participants resumed the ongoing task. As the ongoing task of Experiment 1 was rather simple, Experiment 2 (n = 30) included a modified, somewhat more complex version of the task, in order to examine the effects of activity interruptions by pain. Results Participants made more errors and were slower to initiate movements (Experiment 1 &amp; 2) and to complete movements (Experiment 2) when they resumed the ongoing task after an interruption, indicating that interruptions impaired subsequent performance. However, these impairments were not larger when the interruption was prompted by painful than by non-painful stimulation. Pain catastrophizing did not influence the results. Conclusions Results indicate that activity interruptions by pain have negative consequences for the performance of an activity upon its resumption, but not more so than interruptions by non-painful stimuli. Potential explanations and avenues for future research are discussed. Implications Interrupting ongoing activities is a common response to pain. In two experiments using a novel paradigm we showed that activity interruptions by pain impair subsequent activity resumption and performance. However, this effect seems to not be specific to pain. </jats:sec

Activity interruptions by pain impair activity resumption, but not more than activity interruptions by other stimuli. An experimental investigation

Interrupting ongoing activities whilst intending to resume them later is a natural response to pain. Whereas this response facilitates pain management, at the same time it may also disrupt task performance. Previous research has shown that activity interruptions by pain impair subsequent resumption of the activity, but not more than pain-irrelevant interruptions. Ongoing task complexity and pain threat value might influence interruption effects. In this experiment, we adjusted a paradigm from outside the field of pain to investigate how activity interruptions by pain affect task performance. Healthy participants (n=69) were required to answer a series of questions, in a specific sequence, about presented letter-digit combinations. This ongoing task was occasionally interrupted by painful electrocutaneous or non-painful vibrotactile stimulation (between-subjects) followed by a typing task. Upon interruption completion, participants were required to resume the ongoing task at the next step of the question sequence. Results indicate impaired sequence accuracy (less frequent resumption at the correct step of the sequence) but preserved non-sequence accuracy (similarly frequent correct responses to question content) immediately after an interruption. Effects were not larger for interruptions by pain, compared to non-pain. Further, participants in the two conditions reported similar task experience, namely task motivation, perceived difficulty, and confidence to resume the interrupted task. Pain catastrophizing did not influence the results. As in previous studies, activity interruptions by pain were shown to impair the resumption of a task that requires keeping to a step sequence, but not more than interruptions by non-painful stimuli. Potential explanations are discussed.status: publishe

Age-Related Differences in the Perception of Robotic Referential Gaze in HRI: open dataset

Open access dataset for: Age-Related Differences in the Perception of Robotic Referential Gaze in HR

Winning or not losing? The impact of non-pain goat 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.status: publishe