Effects of catastrophizing on pain perception and pain modulation
Abstract
The multidimensional experience of pain is thought to be partially influenced by the pain modulation system as well as by individual psychological components. Recent studies demonstrated possible common neural network mediating both domains. The present study examined the relationships between pain perception, pain modulation, and catastrophizing in healthy subjects. Forty-eight participants (29 females and 19 males) completed the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) and underwent psychophysical tests in order to evaluate the modulation of pain, using the diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC) paradigm. Contact heat pain (47.0 degrees C applied for 1 min), which was used as the "test" stimulation, was applied before and after a physical effort that induces pain (repeated squeezing of a hand grip device), which was used as a "conditioning" stimulus. Numeric pain scale intensities (NPS, 0-10) were evaluated four times during each of two separate consecutive runs of heat stimulation. Results showed a significant positive correlation of PCS with heat pain (r = 0.48, p < 0.0005) and with muscle pain (r = 0.31, p = 0.03). In addition, significant negative correlations were found between PCS and DNIC effect (r = -0.34, p = 0.02). Moreover, once catastrophizing was entered into the regression analysis, the previously significant effect of gender was no longer found. In conclusion, individuals with high catastrophizing levels demonstrated higher pain intensities and lower effects of DNIC indicating that catastrophizing might have a significant impact on pain perception via an association with pain modulation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Psychological factors including maladaptive cognitions (e.g., catastrophizing, fear of pain) and negative emotions can exacerbate pain perception via cortico-limbic brain circuitry.
“Psychological factors including maladaptive cognitions (e.g., catastrophizing, fear of pain) and negative emotions can exacerbate pain perception via cortico-limbic brain circuitry, 9 -11”
From Randomized Controlled Trial of Brief Mindfulness Training and Hypnotic Suggestion for Acute Pain Relief in the Hospital Setting. (2017) · cites this paper as [10]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 214
- Authors
- Weissman-Fogel, I., Sprecher, E., & Pud, D.
- Affiliations
- Rambam Health Care Campus (IL)
- University of Haifa (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Pud, Dorit
- ORCID
- Sprecher, Elliot
- Venue
- Experimental Brain Research
- Published
- 2007-11-21
- Volume
- 186
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 79-85
- ISSN
- 0014-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1106
- OpenAlex
- W2104638265
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 4.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Experimental Brain Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
- Keywords
- pain catastrophizing, pain perception, pain modulation, diffuse noxious inhibitory control, myalgia, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, gender differences, psychophysical pain assessment
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Physical Exertion, Female, Hot Temperature, Humans, Male, Nerve Net, Pain, Pain Measurement, Perception, Reference Values, Muscle, Skeletal, Patient Selection
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review