The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards a new model of attentional biases in the development, maintenance, and management of pain
Abstract
Individuals with chronic pain demonstrate attentional biases (ABs) towards pain-related stimuli. However, the clinical importance of these biases is yet to be determined and a sound theoretical model for explaining the role of ABs in the development and maintenance of pain is lacking. Within this article, we (1) systematically review prospective and experimental research exploring ABs and pain outcomes in light of current theoretical models and (2) propose a theoretical framework for understanding AB in pain. Across prospective research, an attentional pattern of vigilance-avoidance was observed. Interventions targeting ABs were less consistent; however, there were promising findings among studies that found attentional training effects, particularly for laboratory research. The proposed Threat Interpretation Model suggests a relationship between threat, interpretation, and stimuli in determining attentional processes, which while tentative generates important testable predictions regarding the role of attention in pain and builds on previous theoretical and empirical work in this area.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Individual differences in ABs are not specific to threat cues in anxiety, as they are also found for other motivationally or personally salient information, for example, in illness and pain (Hou et al., 2014;Todd et al., 2015); as well as for rewards, such as food cues in obesity (Castellanos et al., 2009) and drug cues in addiction (Field & Cox, 2008;Field, Mogg, & Bradley, 2006).”
From Anxiety and attention to threat: cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification (2016) · cites this paper as Todd et al., 2015
Citations
Cites
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art.
Vlaeyen, J. W. S., & Linton, S. J. (2000) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00242-0 · Cited by 4,931
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Garg, A. X., Hackam, D. G., & Tonelli, M. A. (2008) · Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · doi:10.2215/cjn.01430307 · Cited by 2,293
Pain demands attention: A cognitive–affective model of the interruptive function of pain.
Eccleston, C., & Crombez, G. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.356 · Cited by 1,718
Fear-Avoidance Model of Chronic Pain: The Next Generation
Crombez, G., Eccleston, C., Van Damme, S., Vlaeyen, J. W. S., & Karoly, P. (2012) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/ajp.0b013e3182385392 · Cited by 960
Cognitive-processing bias in chronic pain: a review and integration.
Pincus, T., & Morley, S. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.5.599 · Cited by 501
Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Miles, F. J., & Dixon, R. (2004) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930341000158 · Cited by 500
Worry and chronic pain: A misdirected problem solving model
Eccleston, C., & Crombez, G. (2007) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.09.014 · Cited by 344
Attentional bias to pain-related information: a meta-analysis.
Crombez, G., Van Ryckeghem, D. M. L., Eccleston, C., & Van Damme, S. (2013) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2012.11.013 · Cited by 334
Adrian Wells, A. (1990) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(05)80330-2 · Cited by 326
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Anxiety and attention to threat: cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2016) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.08.001 · Cited by 313
Attentional bias to pain-related information: a meta-analysis of dot-probe studies
Todd, J., van Ryckeghem, D. M. L., Sharpe, L., & Crombez, G. (2018) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2018.1521729 · Cited by 153
Self-citationVlaeyen, J. W. S., Morley, S., & Crombez, G. (2016) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.08.016 · Cited by 117
Heathcote, L. C., & Eccleston, C. (2017) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000872 · Cited by 122
Barnes, K., Faasse, K., Geers, A. L., Helfer, S. G., Sharpe, L., Colloca, L., & Colagiuri, B. (2019) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.00167 · Cited by 113
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Todd, J., Sharpe, L., Johnson, A., Nicholson Perry, K., Colagiuri, B., & Dear, B. F.
- Affiliations
- ACAP University College (AU)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Macquarie University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Sharpe, Louise
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 156
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1589-1600
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1161601564
- Semantic Scholar
- cdbc46fff3661d23a986455869e297f9b193bd0c
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
- Keywords
- attentional bias, chronic pain, pain maintenance, pain development, attention training, threat interpretation
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Pain, Bias, Databases, Bibliographic, Pain Management
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards a new model of attentional biases in the development, maintenance, and management of pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000214
- The paper
- Todd, J., Sharpe, L., Johnson, A., Nicholson Perry, K., Colagiuri, B., & Dear, B. F. (2015). Towards a new model of attentional biases in the development, maintenance, and management of pain. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000214
