Abstract

BackgroundLearning to predict threatening events enables an organism to engage in protective behavior and prevent harm. Failure to differentiate between cues that truly predict danger and those that do not, however, may lead to indiscriminate fear and avoidance behaviors, which in turn may contribute to disability in people with persistent pain. We aimed to test whether people with persistent neck pain exhibit contingency learning deficits in predicting pain relative to pain-free, gender-and age-matched controls.MethodWe developed a differential predictive learning task with a neck pain-relevant scenario. During the acquisition phase, images displaying two distinct neck positions were presented and participants were asked to predict whether these neck positions would lead to pain in a fictive patient with persistent neck pain (see fictive patient scenario details in Appendix A). After participants gave their pain-expectancy judgment in the hypothetical scenario, the verbal outcome (PAIN or NO PAIN) was shown on the screen. One image (CS+) was followed by the outcome “PAIN”, while another image (CS−) was followed by the outcome “NO PAIN”. During the generalization phase, novel but related images depicting neck positions along a continuum between the CS+ and CS− images (generalization stimuli; GSs) were introduced to assess the generalization of acquired predictive learning to the novel images; the GSs were always followed by the verbal outcome “NOTES UNREADABLE” to prevent extinction learning. Finally, an extinction phase was included in which all images were followed by “NO PAIN” assessing the persistence of pain-expectancy judgments following disconfirming information.ResultsDifferential pain-expectancy learning was reduced in people with neck pain relative to controls, resulting from patients giving significantly lower pain-expectancy judgments for the CS+, and significantly higher pain-expectancy judgments for the CS−. People with neck pain also demonstrated flatter generalization gradients relative to controls. No differences in extinction were noted.DiscussionThe results support the hypothesis that people with persistent neck pain exhibit reduced differential pain-expectancy learning and flatter generalization gradients, reflecting deficits in predictive learning. Contrary to our hypothesis, no differences in extinction were found. These findings may be relevant to understanding behavioral aspects of chronic pain.

Highlights

  • Learning to predict threatening events is highly adaptive as it enables an organism to respond in anticipation with protective action to avoid or limit injury (Enquist, Lind & Ghirlanda, 2016)

  • These findings may be relevant to understanding behavioral aspects of chronic pain

  • These findings show that people with persistent neck pain show less differential pain-expectancy judgments due to heightened pain-expectancy judgments for safety cues

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Learning to predict threatening events is highly adaptive as it enables an organism to respond in anticipation with protective action to avoid or limit injury (Enquist, Lind & Ghirlanda, 2016). Previous research revealed that high scores on pain-related fear and avoidance beliefs questionnaires are associated with poor outcomes following injury and increased disability in a range of conditions such as neck pain (Landers et al, 2008; Nederhand et al, 2004) and back pain (Crombez et al, 1999; for review see Vlaeyen & Linton, 2012). These data suggest that it is not merely the severity of the injury and the associated pain intensity, but rather an individual’s behavioral response to pain that paves the way to chronification. These findings may be relevant to understanding behavioral aspects of chronic pain

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.