MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3016854572

Memory for pain : recalling the quality and intensity of expected acute pain

2006· dissertation· en· W3016854572 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rohini Terry

Notice bibliographique

RevueStirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) · 2006
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiquePain Management and Placebo Effect
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAcute painIntensity (physics)MedicinePsychologyPhysical therapyAnesthesia
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This thesis reports a series of studies designed to assess the extent to which the intensity and qualitative nature of expected acute pain events can be recalled. The first preliminary study assessed recall of the intensity and quality of postoperative pain following day surgery for varicose vein removal. Twenty four participants reported their expectations of pain, their actual pain experiences and their retrospective ratings of pain using the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and a VAS to report pain intensity. In line with prior research, recollections of pain quality appeared to be less accurate than the retrospective ratings of pain intensity. In the second preliminary study, 50 participants who had never experienced vascular surgery were required to provide estimates of the likely nature of postoperative pain following varicose vein removal, based on the information provided in one of two patient information leaflets. Although both groups of non-patient participants overestimated the intensity of the pain, both provided estimates of the qualitative nature of the pain that were similar to the reports made by the patient participants. 
\nThese preliminary studies highlighted the limitations of prior research which has inferred pain recall accuracy by simply by comparing descriptions of acute pain made whilst in pain with ratings made retrospectively, and demonstrated the need to employ a more direct method of assessing memory for pain. The preliminary studies also highlighted the need to consider the influence of the participants ’ expectations of the likely nature o f a forthcoming pain and levels of anxiety on memory for pain. Finally, investigating the relative extent to which pain can be recalled relative to another sensory experience was deemed to be necessary. 
\nThe main study for this thesis assessed memory for experimentally induced acute pain using the remember/know research paradigm (see Tulving, 1985). In Part One of this study, Cold Pressor (CP) pain was induced in 97 participants who provided ratings of their expectations of the CP pain, followed by reports of their actual pain experiences using the MPQ and a VAS whilst using the CP. Participants also provided ratings of anxiety and used a list of 57 descriptors to report the taste of an unusual drink. In Part Two of the study, two weeks later, participants provided retrospective ratings of the CP pain using the MPQ and a VAS, ratings of anxiety, and the taste of the drink. Participants were then asked to make ‘remember’ or ‘know ’judgements about the MPQ pain and taste descriptors that they had selected, based on the level of conscious awareness accompanying their recollections. 
\nThe findings indicate that memory for the intensity of expected acute pain was reliable for at least two weeks. In addition, the data suggest that recollections of the broad defining aspects of the quality of acute pain can also be reliable, but may be more appropriately assessed at a ‘type of pain’ level rather than the fine-grained level of individual MPQ descriptors. Central to this investigation was the finding that participants were readily able to distinguish between whether their recollections reflected ‘remembering’ and ‘knowing’ about their prior experiences of both pain and taste. It is concluded that the use of the remember/know distinction allows for a more direct assessment of the participants ’ reports of their memories than inferring the likely nature of these recollective experiences, and that recollections of pain and of other sensory experiences are broadly similar. Expectations and anxiety were not related to pain recall accuracy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,022
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,590
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0220,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,102
Tête enseignante GPT0,370
Écart entre enseignants0,267 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueStirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling)Même sujetPain Management and Placebo EffectTravaux en français237 207