Time course of attentional bias to painful facial expressions and the moderating role of attentional control: an eye-tracking study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study investigated the time course of attention to pain and examined the moderating effect of attentional control in the relationship between pain catastrophizing and attentional bias in chronic pain patients. METHODS: A total of 28 patients with chronic pain and 29 pain-free individuals observed pictures of pain, happy and neutral facial expressions while their gaze behaviour was recorded. Pain intensity and duration, anxiety, depression, stress, attentional control and pain catastrophizing were assessed by questionnaires. RESULTS: In all subjects, the pattern of attention for pain faces was characterized by initial vigilance, followed by avoidance. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of orientation towards the stimuli, the duration of first fixation, the average duration of fixation or number of fixations on the pain stimuli. Attentional control moderated the relationship between catastrophizing and overall dwell time for happy faces in pain patients, indicating that those with high attentional control and high catastrophizing focused more on happy faces, whereas the reverse was true for those with low attentional control. CONCLUSION: This study supported the vigilance-avoidance pattern of attention to painful facial expressions and a moderation effect of attentional control in the association between pain catastrophizing and attentional bias to happy faces among pain patients.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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".