Suppr超能文献

急性腰痛患者是否对威胁相关的词语存在注意力偏向?

Do people with acute low back pain have an attentional bias to threat-related words?

机构信息

School of Community Health, Charles Sturt University, Port Macquarie, NSW, Australia.

Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

出版信息

Scand J Pain. 2021 May 21;21(3):485-494. doi: 10.1515/sjpain-2020-0014. Print 2021 Jul 27.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

It has been hypothesised that attentional bias to environmental threats can contribute to persistent pain. It is unclear whether people with acute low back pain (LBP) have an attentional bias to environmental threats. We investigated if attentional bias of threat related words is different in people with acute LBP and pain-free controls.

METHODS

People with acute LBP and pain-free people completed a free viewing eye tracking task. Participants were simultaneously presented with two words, a threat related word and a neutral control word. Threat related words were general threat, affective pain and sensory pain. We conducted linear mixed models to detect differences between acute LBP and pain-free participants on five eye tracking outcome measures (dwell time, first fixation, latency to first fixation, first run dwell time and number of fixations). We calculated absolute reliability, (standard error of measure), and relative reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC 2,1]) for each eye tracking outcome measures.

RESULTS

We recruited 65 people with acute LBP and 65 pain-free controls. Participants with acute LBP had a higher proportion of fixations towards the affective pain words (=0.5009, 95% CI=0.4941, 0.5076) than the pain-free controls had (=0.4908, 95% CI=0.4836, 0.4979), mean between group difference = -0.0101, 95% CI [-0.0198, -0.0004], p=0.0422. There was no difference between acute LBP and pain-free controls for the remaining eye tracking outcome measures (all p>0.05). The only outcome measure that had an ICC of more than 0.7 was the latency to first fixation (affective pain words ICC=0.73, general threat words ICC=0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with pain-free controls, people with acute LBP looked more often at affective pain words relative to neutral control words. This may indicate a form of engagement bias for people with acute LBP. Attentional bias was not consistent across outcome measures or word groups. Further research is needed to investigate the potential role of attentional bias in the development of persistent pain.

摘要

目的

有人假设,对环境威胁的注意力偏差可能导致持续性疼痛。目前尚不清楚急性腰痛(LBP)患者是否对环境威胁存在注意力偏差。我们调查了急性 LBP 患者和无痛对照者对威胁相关词汇的注意力偏差是否不同。

方法

急性 LBP 患者和无痛患者完成了自由观看眼动跟踪任务。参与者同时呈现两个词,一个威胁相关词和一个中性对照词。威胁相关词为一般威胁、情感疼痛和感觉疼痛。我们进行了线性混合模型分析,以检测急性 LBP 患者和无痛患者在五个眼动跟踪结果测量(注视时间、首次注视、首次注视潜伏期、首次注视时的注视时间和注视次数)上的差异。我们计算了每个眼动跟踪结果测量的绝对可靠性(测量标准误差)和相对可靠性(组内相关系数[ICC 2,1])。

结果

我们招募了 65 名急性 LBP 患者和 65 名无痛对照者。与无痛对照组相比,急性 LBP 患者的注视情感疼痛词的比例更高(=0.5009,95%置信区间=0.4941,0.5076),而无痛对照组的注视情感疼痛词的比例为(=0.4908,95%置信区间=0.4836,0.4979),组间差异为-0.0101,95%置信区间[-0.0198,-0.0004],p=0.0422。对于其余的眼动跟踪结果测量,急性 LBP 患者与无痛对照组之间没有差异(所有 p>0.05)。只有首次注视潜伏期(情感疼痛词 ICC=0.73,一般威胁词 ICC=0.72)的眼动跟踪结果测量的 ICC 大于 0.7。

结论

与无痛对照组相比,急性 LBP 患者相对中性对照词,更多地注视情感疼痛词。这可能表明急性 LBP 患者存在某种形式的注意力参与偏差。注意力偏差在不同的结果测量或词汇组中并不一致。需要进一步研究以探讨注意力偏差在持续性疼痛发展中的潜在作用。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验