↓ Skip to main content

Beyond pain: modeling decision-making deficits in chronic pain

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Beyond pain: modeling decision-making deficits in chronic pain
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00263
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonardo Emanuel Hess, Ariel Haimovici, Miguel Angel Muñoz, Pedro Montoya

Abstract

Risky decision-making seems to be markedly disrupted in patients with chronic pain, probably due to the high cost that impose pain and negative mood on executive control functions. Patients' behavioral performance on decision-making tasks such as the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is characterized by selecting cards more frequently from disadvantageous than from advantageous decks, and by switching often between competing responses in comparison with healthy controls (HCs). In the present study, we developed a simple heuristic model to simulate individuals' choice behavior by varying the level of decision randomness and the importance given to gains and losses. The findings revealed that the model was able to differentiate the behavioral performance of patients with chronic pain and HCs at the group, as well as at the individual level. The best fit of the model in patients with chronic pain was yielded when decisions were not based on previous choices and when gains were considered more relevant than losses. By contrast, the best account of the available data in HCs was obtained when decisions were based on previous experiences and losses loomed larger than gains. In conclusion, our model seems to provide useful information to measure each individual participant extensively, and to deal with the data on a participant-by-participant basis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Computer Science 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2014.
All research outputs
#13,410,148
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,618
of 3,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,215
of 229,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#34
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 229,515 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.