↓ Skip to main content

Differential Classical Conditioning of the Nocebo Effect: Increasing Heat-Pain Perception without Verbal Suggestions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
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
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Differential Classical Conditioning of the Nocebo Effect: Increasing Heat-Pain Perception without Verbal Suggestions
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02163
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Kathrin Bräscher, Dieter Kleinböhl, Rupert Hölzl, Susanne Becker

Abstract

Background: Nocebo effects, including nocebo hyperalgesia, are a common phenomenon in clinical routine with manifold negative consequences. Both explicit expectations and learning by conditioning are known to induce nocebo effects, but the specific role of conditioning remains unclear, because conditioning is rarely implemented independent of verbal suggestions. Further, although pain is a multidimensional phenomenon, nocebo effects are usually assessed in subjective ratings only, neglecting, e.g., behavioral aspects. The aim of this study was to test whether nocebo hyperalgesia can be learned by conditioning without explicit expectations, to assess nocebo effects in different response channels, and to exploratively assess, whether contingency awareness is a necessary condition for conditioned nocebo hyperalgesia. Methods: Twenty-one healthy volunteers were classically conditioned using painful and non-painful heat stimuli that followed two different cues. The conditioned nocebo effect was assessed by subjective ratings of perceived stimulation intensity on a visual analog scale and a behavioral discrimination task, assessing sensitization and habituation in response to the same stimulation following the two cues. Results: Results show a conditioned nocebo effect indicated by the subjective intensity ratings. Conditioned effects were also seen in the behavioral responses, but paradoxically, behavioral responses indicated decreased perception after conditioning, but only for subjects successfully conditioned as indicated by the subjective ratings. Explorative analyses suggested that awareness of the contingencies and the different cues was not necessary for successful conditioning. Conclusion: Nocebo effects can be learned without inducing additional explicit expectations. The dissociation between the two response channels, possibly representing the conditioned and a compensatory response, highlights the importance of considering different outcomes in nocebo responses to fully understand underlying mechanisms. The present results challenge the role of explicit expectations in conditioned nocebo effects and are relevant with implications in clinical contexts, e.g., when transient adverse effects become conditioned.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 28%
Neuroscience 8 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 17 30%
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 13 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,339,981
of 25,637,545 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,237
of 34,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,087
of 445,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#300
of 530 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,637,545 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,719 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 445,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 530 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.