The influence of a manipulation of threat on experimentally-induced secondary hyperalgesia.

Journal: PeerJ

Volume: 10

Issue: 

Year of Publication: 2023

Affiliated Institutions:  Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa. Pain Unit, Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa. Institute of Neuroscience, Division Cognitive and Systems, UC Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. Research Group Health Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. IIMPACT in Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

Abstract summary 

Pain is thought to be influenced by the threat value of the particular context in which it occurs. However, the mechanisms by which a threat achieves this influence on pain are unclear. Here, we explore how threat influences experimentally-induced secondary hyperalgesia, which is thought to be a manifestation of central sensitization. We developed an experimental study to investigate the effect of a manipulation of threat on experimentally-induced secondary hyperalgesia in 26 healthy human adults (16 identifying as female; 10 as male). We induced secondary hyperalgesia at both forearms using high-frequency electrical stimulation. Prior to the induction, we used a previously successful method to manipulate threat of tissue damage at one forearm (threat site). The effect of the threat manipulation was determined by comparing participant-rated anxiety, perceived threat, and pain during the experimental induction of secondary hyperalgesia, between the threat and control sites. We hypothesized that the threat site would show greater secondary hyperalgesia (primary outcome) and greater surface area (secondary outcome) of induced secondary hyperalgesia than the control site. Despite a thorough piloting procedure to test the threat manipulation, our data showed no main effect of site on pain, anxiety, or threat ratings during high-frequency electrical stimulation. In the light of no difference in threat between sites, the primary and secondary hypotheses cannot be tested. We discuss reasons why we were unable to replicate the efficacy of this established threat manipulation in our sample, including: (1) competition between threats, (2) generalization of learned threat value, (3) safety cues, (4) trust, and requirements for participant safety, (5) sampling bias, (6) sample-specific habituation to threat, and (7) implausibility of (sham) skin examination and report. Better strategies to manipulate threat are required for further research on the mechanisms by which threat influences pain.

Authors & Co-authors:  Bedwell Gillian J GJ Louw Caron C Parker Romy R van den Broeke Emanuel E Vlaeyen Johan W JW Moseley G Lorimer GL Madden Victoria J VJ

Study Outcome 

Source Link: Visit source

Statistics
Citations :  Arntz A, Claassens L. The meaning of pain influences its experienced intensity. Pain. 2004;109(1–2):20–25. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2003.12.030.
Authors :  7
Identifiers
Doi : e13512
SSN : 2167-8359
Study Population
Male,Female
Mesh Terms
Adult
Other Terms
Electrical stimulation;Healthy volunteers;Mechanical hyperalgesia;Pain;Secondary hyperalgesia;Threat
Study Design
Case Control Trial,Cross Sectional Study
Study Approach
Country of Study
Publication Country
United States