The relation between catastrophizing and facial responsiveness to pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain catastrophizing has recently been suggested to have a social function based on a positive association observed with facial responsiveness to noxious stimulation. However, this assumption is based on studies applying nociceptive stimuli of fixed intensity, such that high catastrophizers not only displayed increased pain behavior but also rated the stimulation as being more painful. The aim of this study was to investigate the relation between catastrophizing and facial responsiveness while controlling for individual differences in pain sensitivity. The facial expression of pain was investigated in 44 young and pain-free individuals in response to painful and non-painful phasic heat stimuli. Painful temperatures were tailored to the individual sensitivity to produce moderate pain. Facial responses were videotaped and objectively examined using the Facial Action Coding System. We also assessed skin conductance activity as an autonomic indicator of pain-related responses. Catastrophizing was assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). In accordance with previous findings, subjects scoring higher on pain catastrophizing required lower thermal intensities to induce a moderately painful sensation (r=-0.40, p=0.007). However, catastrophizing did not correlate with facial responsiveness to perceptually controlled painful stimulation (r=-0.02, p=0.88). Moreover, correlation analyses revealed no significant associations between catastrophizing and skin conductance responses. The present findings provide further support for the impact of pain catastophizing on pain sensitivity. However, our finding of no relation between catastrophizing and facial responsiveness when participants are experiencing comparable psychophysical pain intensities, challenges previous assumptions that high catastrophizers display amplified pain behavior; at least in young and pain-free individuals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".