Cited by 53Pain Management and Placebo EffectPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPediatric Pain Management Techniques

Opposing effects of expectancy and somatic focus on pain

Open access
Johnston, Natalie E., Atlas, Lauren Y., Wager, Tor D.·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

High-pain expectancy increases pain and pain-related brain activity, creating a cycle of psychologically maintained pain. Though these effects are robust, little is known about how expectancy works and what psychological processes either support or mitigate its effects. To address this, we independently manipulated pain expectancy and "top-down" attention to the body, and examined their effects on both a performance-based measure of body-focus and heat-induced pain. Multi-level mediation analyses showed that high-pain expectancy substantially increased pain, replicating previous work. However, attention to the body reduced pain, partially suppressing the effects of expectancy. Furthermore, increased body-focus had larger pain-reducing effects when pain expectancy was high, suggesting that attempts to focus on external distractors are counterproductive in this situation. Overall, the results show that attention to the body cannot explain pain-enhancing expectancy effects, and that focusing on sensory/discriminative aspects of pain might be a useful pain-regulation strategy when severe pain is expected.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0038854

Cites

50 of 50 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnston, N. E., Atlas, L. Y., & Wager, T. D.
Affiliations
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Wager, Tor D.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-06-19
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
e38854
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128486889
Cited by
53
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (MH076136)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH076136, R01MH076136)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (RC1DA028608, R01DA027794)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
pain anticipation, top-down attention, thermal pain, pain modulation, pain-related brain activity, distraction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Brain, Female, Hot Temperature, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Young Adult

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