↓ Skip to main content

Words putting pain in motion: the generalization of pain-related fear within an artificial stimulus category

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Words putting pain in motion: the generalization of pain-related fear within an artificial stimulus category
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00520
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc P. Bennett, Ann Meulders, Frank Baeyens, Johan W. S. Vlaeyen

Abstract

Patients with chronic pain are often fearful of movements that never featured in painful episodes. This study examined whether a neutral movement's conceptual relationship with pain-relevant stimuli could precipitate pain-related fear; a process known as symbolic generalization. As a secondary objective, we also compared experiential and verbal fear learning in the generalization of pain-related fear. We conducted an experimental study with 80 healthy participants who were recruited through an online experimental management system (M age = 23.04 years, SD = 6.80 years). First, two artificial categories were established wherein nonsense words and joystick arm movements were equivalent. Using a between-groups design, nonsense words from one category were paired with either an electrocutaneous stimulus (pain-US) or threatening information, while nonsense words from the other category were paired with no pain-US or safety information. During a final testing phase, participants were prompted to perform specific joystick arm movements that were never followed by a pain-US, although they were informed that it could occur. The results showed that movements equivalent to the pain-relevant nonsense words evoked heightened pain-related fear as measured by pain-US expectancy, fear of pain, and unpleasantness ratings. Also, experience with the pain-US evinced stronger acquisition and generalization compared to experience with threatening information. The clinical importance and theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Israel 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 87 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 22%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Unspecified 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 26 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 January 2016.
All research outputs
#5,725,629
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,219
of 31,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,207
of 265,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#173
of 501 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
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 265,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 501 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 65% of its contemporaries.