Cited by 85Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Placebo EffectPain Management and Treatment

Pain Catastrophizing, but not Injury/Illness Sensitivity or Anxiety Sensitivity, Enhances Attentional Interference by Pain

Open access
Vancleef, Linda M.G., Peters, Madelon L.·2006·The Journal of Pain

Abstract

Unlabelled Pain draws on attentional resources, thereby disturbing the pursuit of ongoing activities. Several studies have made use of the primary task paradigm to study the disruptive function of pain on attention. In this paradigm, participants perform an attentionally demanding task, while they are occasionally distracted by mild electrical stimulation. Deterioration in task performance (in terms of speed and accuracy) is then taken as an index of attentional interference. One major finding with this paradigm was that pain catastrophizing enhances attentional interference. The current study aimed to replicate this finding and to explore the possible influence of anxiety sensitivity and injury/illness sensitivity on attentional interference. Healthy volunteers (n = 48) performed an auditory discrimination task and were thereby occasionally distracted by low electrocutaneous stimulations. The performance on the discrimination task was subsequently related to participants' scores on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the Anxiety Sensitivity Index, and the Injury/illness Sensitivity Index. We were unable to demonstrate an association of either injury/illness sensitivity or anxiety sensitivity with attentional interference. Results did, however, confirm the finding that pain catastrophizing enhances attentional interference. Perspective The present study showed that pain disrupts ongoing activities. This effect is enlarged in those with high levels of pain catastrophizing and is related to the threatening nature of pain stimuli. The role of anxiety sensitivity and injury/illness sensitivity seems to differ from the role of catastrophizing and needs further research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpain.2005.04.003

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There is a well-documented history of contradiction in attention and pain research.

    “Despite the many years of focused work on attention and pain, there is a well-documented history of contradiction8”

    From A Contextual Analysis of Attention to Chronic Pain: What the Patient Does With Their Pain Might Be More Important Than Their Awareness or Vigilance Alone (2007) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Discussion says this study confirmed previous findings that pain disrupts attention, but it does not address whether attention-and-pain research has a well-documented history of contradictory findings. Searches for conflicting and inconsistent results found no passage establishing that history. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Eysenck MW: Anxiety and Cognition: A Unified Theory. Hove, England, Psychology Press/Erlbaum, 1997
  2. Keogh E, Asmundson GJ: Negative affectivity, cata- strophizing and anxiety sensitivity, in Asmundson GJ, Vlaeyen JW, Crombez G (eds): Understanding and Treating Fear of Pain. New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2004
  3. Norman DA, Shallice T: Attention to action: willed and automatic control of behaviour, in Davidson RJ, Schwartz GE, Shapiro D (eds): Consciousness and Self Regulation. New York, NY, Plenum Press, 1986, pp 1-18

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vancleef, L. M. G., & Peters, M. L.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Vancleef, Linda M.G.
Venue
The Journal of Pain
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
23-30
ISSN
1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073833827
Cited by
85
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (015-001-050)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
pain catastrophizing, attentional interference, anxiety sensitivity, electrocutaneous stimulation, replication
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Attention, Auditory Perception, Electric Stimulation, Female, Humans, Male, Pain, Reaction Time, Task Performance and Analysis, Wounds and Injuries, Pain Threshold

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