The time course of attentional biases in pain: a meta-analysis of eye-tracking studies

Emma Blaisdale Jones; Louise Sharpe; Sally Andrews; Ben Colagiuri; Joanne Dudeney; Elaine Fox; Lauren C. Heathcote; Jennifer Y. F. Lau; Jemma Todd; Stefaan Van Damme; Dimitri M. L. Van Ryckeghem; Tine Vervoort

doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002083

The time course of attentional biases in pain: a meta-analysis of eye-tracking studies

Emma Blaisdale Jones, Louise Sharpe, Sally Andrews, Ben Colagiuri, Joanne Dudeney, Elaine Fox, Lauren C. Heathcote, Jennifer Y. F. Lau, Jemma Todd, Stefaan Van Damme, Dimitri M. L. Van Ryckeghem, Tine Vervoort

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Previous meta-analyses investigating attentional biases towards pain have used reaction time measures. Eye-tracking methods have been adopted to more directly and reliably assess biases, but this literature has not been synthesized in relation to pain. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the nature and time course of attentional biases to pain-related stimuli in participants of all ages with and without chronic pain using eye-tracking studies and determine the role of task parameters and theoretically relevant moderators. After screening, 24 studies were included with a total sample of 1425 participants. Between-group analyses revealed no significant overall group differences for people with and without chronic pain on biases to pain-related stimuli. Results indicated significant attentional biases towards pain-related words or pictures across both groups on probability of first fixation (k = 21, g = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.71, P = 0.002), how long participants looked at each picture in the first 500 ms (500-ms epoch dwell: k = 5, g = 0.69, 95% CI 0.034-1.35, P = 0.039), and how long participants looked at each picture overall (total dwell time: k = 25, g = 0.44, 95% CI 0.15-0.72, P = 0.003). Follow-up analyses revealed significant attentional biases on probability of first fixation, latency to first fixation and dwell time for facial stimuli, and number of fixations for sensory word stimuli. Moderator analyses revealed substantial influence of task parameters and some influence of threat status and study quality. Findings support biases in both vigilance and attentional maintenance for pain-related stimuli but suggest attentional biases towards pain are ubiquitous and not related to pain status.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	687-701
Number of pages	15
Journal	Pain
Volume	162
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002083
Publication status	Published - 1 Mar 2021

Keywords

Attentional bias
Pain
Meta-analysis
Eye-tracking
Chronic pain
Vigilance
Avoidance

Access to Document

10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002083

Cite this

@article{aa688b5683d743d2b1da5e64bc628b4c,

title = "The time course of attentional biases in pain: a meta-analysis of eye-tracking studies",

abstract = "ABSTRACT: Previous meta-analyses investigating attentional biases towards pain have used reaction time measures. Eye-tracking methods have been adopted to more directly and reliably assess biases, but this literature has not been synthesized in relation to pain. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the nature and time course of attentional biases to pain-related stimuli in participants of all ages with and without chronic pain using eye-tracking studies and determine the role of task parameters and theoretically relevant moderators. After screening, 24 studies were included with a total sample of 1425 participants. Between-group analyses revealed no significant overall group differences for people with and without chronic pain on biases to pain-related stimuli. Results indicated significant attentional biases towards pain-related words or pictures across both groups on probability of first fixation (k = 21, g = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.71, P = 0.002), how long participants looked at each picture in the first 500 ms (500-ms epoch dwell: k = 5, g = 0.69, 95% CI 0.034-1.35, P = 0.039), and how long participants looked at each picture overall (total dwell time: k = 25, g = 0.44, 95% CI 0.15-0.72, P = 0.003). Follow-up analyses revealed significant attentional biases on probability of first fixation, latency to first fixation and dwell time for facial stimuli, and number of fixations for sensory word stimuli. Moderator analyses revealed substantial influence of task parameters and some influence of threat status and study quality. Findings support biases in both vigilance and attentional maintenance for pain-related stimuli but suggest attentional biases towards pain are ubiquitous and not related to pain status.",

keywords = "Attentional bias, Pain, Meta-analysis, Eye-tracking, Chronic pain, Vigilance, Avoidance",

author = "Jones, {Emma Blaisdale} and Louise Sharpe and Sally Andrews and Ben Colagiuri and Joanne Dudeney and Elaine Fox and Heathcote, {Lauren C.} and Lau, {Jennifer Y. F.} and Jemma Todd and {Van Damme}, Stefaan and {Van Ryckeghem}, {Dimitri M. L.} and Tine Vervoort",

note = "Publisher Copyright: Copyright {\textcopyright} 2020 International Association for the Study of Pain. Copyright: This record is sourced from MEDLINE/PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine",

year = "2021",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002083",

language = "English",

volume = "162",

pages = "687--701",

journal = "Pain",

issn = "0304-3959",

publisher = "ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The time course of attentional biases in pain

T2 - a meta-analysis of eye-tracking studies

AU - Jones, Emma Blaisdale

AU - Sharpe, Louise

AU - Andrews, Sally

AU - Colagiuri, Ben

AU - Dudeney, Joanne

AU - Fox, Elaine

AU - Heathcote, Lauren C.

AU - Lau, Jennifer Y. F.

AU - Todd, Jemma

AU - Van Damme, Stefaan

AU - Van Ryckeghem, Dimitri M. L.

AU - Vervoort, Tine

PY - 2021/3/1

Y1 - 2021/3/1

N2 - ABSTRACT: Previous meta-analyses investigating attentional biases towards pain have used reaction time measures. Eye-tracking methods have been adopted to more directly and reliably assess biases, but this literature has not been synthesized in relation to pain. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the nature and time course of attentional biases to pain-related stimuli in participants of all ages with and without chronic pain using eye-tracking studies and determine the role of task parameters and theoretically relevant moderators. After screening, 24 studies were included with a total sample of 1425 participants. Between-group analyses revealed no significant overall group differences for people with and without chronic pain on biases to pain-related stimuli. Results indicated significant attentional biases towards pain-related words or pictures across both groups on probability of first fixation (k = 21, g = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.71, P = 0.002), how long participants looked at each picture in the first 500 ms (500-ms epoch dwell: k = 5, g = 0.69, 95% CI 0.034-1.35, P = 0.039), and how long participants looked at each picture overall (total dwell time: k = 25, g = 0.44, 95% CI 0.15-0.72, P = 0.003). Follow-up analyses revealed significant attentional biases on probability of first fixation, latency to first fixation and dwell time for facial stimuli, and number of fixations for sensory word stimuli. Moderator analyses revealed substantial influence of task parameters and some influence of threat status and study quality. Findings support biases in both vigilance and attentional maintenance for pain-related stimuli but suggest attentional biases towards pain are ubiquitous and not related to pain status.

AB - ABSTRACT: Previous meta-analyses investigating attentional biases towards pain have used reaction time measures. Eye-tracking methods have been adopted to more directly and reliably assess biases, but this literature has not been synthesized in relation to pain. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the nature and time course of attentional biases to pain-related stimuli in participants of all ages with and without chronic pain using eye-tracking studies and determine the role of task parameters and theoretically relevant moderators. After screening, 24 studies were included with a total sample of 1425 participants. Between-group analyses revealed no significant overall group differences for people with and without chronic pain on biases to pain-related stimuli. Results indicated significant attentional biases towards pain-related words or pictures across both groups on probability of first fixation (k = 21, g = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.71, P = 0.002), how long participants looked at each picture in the first 500 ms (500-ms epoch dwell: k = 5, g = 0.69, 95% CI 0.034-1.35, P = 0.039), and how long participants looked at each picture overall (total dwell time: k = 25, g = 0.44, 95% CI 0.15-0.72, P = 0.003). Follow-up analyses revealed significant attentional biases on probability of first fixation, latency to first fixation and dwell time for facial stimuli, and number of fixations for sensory word stimuli. Moderator analyses revealed substantial influence of task parameters and some influence of threat status and study quality. Findings support biases in both vigilance and attentional maintenance for pain-related stimuli but suggest attentional biases towards pain are ubiquitous and not related to pain status.

KW - Attentional bias

KW - Pain

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Eye-tracking

KW - Chronic pain

KW - Vigilance

KW - Avoidance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102153454&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002083

DO - 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002083

M3 - Article

C2 - 32960534

AN - SCOPUS:85102153454

SN - 0304-3959

VL - 162

SP - 687

EP - 701

JO - Pain

JF - Pain

IS - 3

ER -

The time course of attentional biases in pain: a meta-analysis of eye-tracking studies

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this