Are the spatial features of bodily threat limited to the exact location where pain is expected?

Previous research has revealed that anticipating pain at a particular location of the body prioritizes somatosensory input presented there. The present study tested whether the spatial features of bodily threat are limited to the exact location of nociception. Participants judged which one of two tactile stimuli, presented to either hand, had been presented first, while occasionally experiencing a painful stimulus. The distance between the pain and tactile locations was manipulated. In Experiment 1, participants expected pain either proximal to one of the tactile stimuli (on the hand; near condition) or more distant on the same body part (arm; far condition). In Experiment 2, the painful stimulus was expected either proximal to one of the tactile stimuli (hand; near) or on a different body-part at the same body side (leg; far). The results revealed that in the near condition of both experiments, participants became aware of tactile stimuli presented to the "threatened" hand more quickly as compared to the "neutral" hand. Of particular interest, the data in the far conditions showed a similar prioritization effect when pain was expected at a different location of the same body part as well as when pain was expected at a different body part at the same body side. In this study, the encoding of spatial features of bodily threat was not limited to the exact location where pain was anticipated but rather generalized to the entire body part and even to different body parts at the same side of the body

Sixty-four or four-and-sixty? The influence of language and working memory on children's number transcoding

Number transcoding (e.g., writing 64 when hearing “sixty-four”) is a basic numerical skill; rather faultlessly performed in adults, but difficult for children. In the present study, children speaking Dutch (an inversed number language) and French (a non-inversed number language) wrote Arabic digits to dictation. We also tested their IQ and their phonological, visuospatial, and executive working memory. Although the number of transcoding errors (e.g., hearing 46 but writing 56) was equal in both groups, the number of inversion errors (e.g., hearing 46 but writing 64) was significantly higher in Dutch-speaking than in French-speaking children. Regression analyses confirmed that language was the only significant predictor of inversion errors. Working-memory components, in contrast, were the only significant predictors of transcoding errors. Executive resources were important in all children. Less-skilled transcoders also differed from more-skilled transcoders in that they used semantic rather than asemantic transcoding routes. Given the observed relation between number transcoding and mathematics grades, current findings may provide useful information for educational and clinical settings

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. he 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

Patient-reported outcomes among people living with HIV on single- versus multi-tablet regimens : data from a real-life setting

Background The use of single-tablet regimens (STRs) in HIV treatment is ubiquitous. However, reintroducing the (generic) components as multi-tablet regimens (MTRs) could be an interesting cost-reducing strategy. It is essential to involve patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) to examine the effects of such an approach. Hence, this study compared PROs of people living with HIV taking an STR versus a MTR in a real world setting. Materials and methods This longitudinal study included 188 people living with HIV. 132 remained on a MTR and 56 switched to an STR. At baseline, months 1-3-6-12-18 and 24, participants filled in questionnaires on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), depressive symptoms, HIV symptoms, neurocognitive complaints (NCC), treatment satisfaction and adherence. Generalized linear mixed models and generalized estimation equations mixed models were built. Results Clinical parameters and PROs of the two groups were comparable at baseline. Neurocognitive complaints and treatment satisfaction did differ over time among the groups. In the STR-group, the odds of having NCC increased monthly by 4,1% as compared to the MTR-group (p = 0.035). Moreover, people taking an STR were more satisfied with their treatment after 6 months: the median change score was high: 24 (IQR 7,5-29). Further, treatment satisfaction showed a contrary evolution in the groups: the estimated state score of the STR-group increased by 3,3 while it decreased by 0,2 in the MTR-group (p = 0.003). No differences over time between the groups were observed with regard to HRQoL, HIV symptoms, depressive symptoms and adherence. Conclusions Neurocognitive complaints were more frequently reported among people on an STR versus MTR. This finding contrasts with the higher treatment satisfaction in the STR-group over time. The long-term effects of both PROs should guide the decision-making on STRs vs. (generic) MTRs