The effect of tonic pain stimulation on the attention network test in young males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the effect of tonic pain stimulation on the attention network test (ANT) . Methods Twenty healthy males recruited from university were enrolled in this study, and laboratory pain was induced by cuff pressure stimulation on the upper arm. All subjects performed the task separately under pain, no-pain and pressure conditions. The reaction time and accuracy rate of the ANT were quantified. The subjective pain perception was assessed by the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire ( SF-MPQ) . Results Across three conditions, the executive network showed significant pain effect (F = 76.31 , P< 0.001) : no-pain condition at (92.51 ±35.71 )ms, pressure condition at (94.06 ±25. 28) ms, pain condition at ( 120.24 ± 18.21 )ms. Furthermore, the average reaction time and the A-scores (i. e. affective words) in SF-MPQ caused by pain was positively correlated ( r = 0.11, P = 0.03) . Conclusion Pain can result in deficit in the executive network for attention regulation. The negative affections caused by pain can interfere with attention. Key words: Attention network test ( ANT); Pain; Negative affections
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".