A psychophysical analysis of experiential factors that... : PAIN (original) (raw)
Research report: PDF Only
A psychophysical analysis of experiential factors that selectively influence the affective dimension of pain
National Institute of Dental Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20205, U.S.A.
*Please and correspondence to: Dr. James J. Barrell, Department of Psychology, West Georgia College, Carrollton, Ga. 30118, U.S.A.
Submitted August 24, 1979; accepted December 13, 1979.
Abstract
A psychophysical analysis was made of experiential factors that influence the affective but not the sensory-discriminative dimension of pain. Seven subjects made cross-modality matching responses to several dimensions of their experience. Before each stimulus, they matched line lengths to their experienced desire to avoid pain (significance) and to their perceived likelihood of avoiding it (expectation). After each stimulus, they matched line lengths to perceived sensation intensity (in some sessions) or to felt magnitudes of positive or negative feeling (in other sessions). Non-noxious (35, 42°C) and noxious (45–51°C) skin temperature stimuli were randomly interspersed during each experimental session. Changes in expectation were induced by preceding one-half of the noxious stimuli with a warning signal.
The average responses of these subjects indicated that 45–51°C noxious temperatures were felt as less unpleasant when preceded by a warning signal. In contrast, sensation magnitudes evoked by these same skin temperatures were unaffeted by the warning signal. Thus, only the magnitudes of unpleasant responses are lowered by decreasing one's expectation of avoiding pain.
Analysis of individual responses revealed two distinct patterns of response changes following presentation of the warning signal. Four subjects retained the same general goal of avoiding pain and reduced their expectation of avoiding it. Their affective responses were less unpleasant during the warning signal. The remaining three subjects primarily altered their goals and not their expectations on signaled trials. Their affective responses were not modified by the signal.
Subjects were instructed to arrive at their affective responses in two ways.
© Lippincott-Raven Publishers.