The Effect of Pain Resilience on Experimental Pain Experience Across Different Stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pain resilience, one's ability to maintain behavioral engagement and adaptively regulate cognitions and emotions despite intense or prolonged pain, has been shown to protect against negative pain-related outcomes in experimental settings. A weakness of this research, and much of experimental pain research in general, has been the lack of rationale behind the selection of noxious stimuli, which can activate different nociceptive fibers. The present study sought to determine if the relationship between pain resilience and pain ratings differed across stimuli based on the stimulated nociceptors. METHODS: Healthy undergraduate students (N = 100; mean [SD] age = 19.4 [1.2] years; 60% female) completed the Pain Resilience Scale and provided continuous pain ratings during exposure to three different tasks, each selected based on their ability to stimulate specific combinations of nociceptive fibers: pinprick (Aδ fibers), cold water immersion (Aδ and C fibers), and ischemic tourniquet (C fibers). RESULTS: Participants with high pain resilience reported lower pain ratings over time during cold water immersion than did those with low pain resilience (F(1, 39) = 8.526, p = .006); however, there was no relationship between pain resilience and pain ratings during either of the pinprick or ischemic tourniquet stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further support for the use of multiple pain stimuli for pain assessment given their unique characteristics and concludes that outcome variables aside from pain ratings may provide additional insight into the role of resilience on pain adaptation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".