Parental (non‐)pain attending verbalizations moderate the relationship between child attention and memory bias for pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children's negatively biased pain-related memories (i.e. recalling pain as being more intense or fearful than initially reported) have been recognized as a key factor in explaining child pain development. While mechanisms underlying children's pain memory development remain poorly understood, attention biases and parent language have been implicated in conceptual models. This study examined the association between child pain-related attention and memory biases and the moderating role of parental pain and non-pain attending verbalizations. METHODS: Participants were 51 school children and one of their parents. Probability of initial fixation and gaze duration to pain were assessed using eye tracking methodology. Children performed a cold pressor task (CPT) and reported on experienced pain intensity and pain-related fear. A 3-minute parent-child interaction upon CPT completion allowed measurement of parental pain and non-pain attending verbalizations. Children's pain-related memories were elicited 2 weeks later. RESULTS: Findings indicated that the relationship between maintained attention to pain and fear memory bias was moderated by parental non-pain attending verbalizations such that higher gaze duration bias was positively associated with fear memory bias but only among children whose parents demonstrated low levels of non-pain attending verbalizations. The opposite pattern was observed for children whose parents showed high levels of non-pain attending verbalizations. No such effects were observed for child initial attention bias to pain, memory bias for pain and parental pain attending verbalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of parental and child pain-related variables as well as their interaction in understanding negatively biased pain-related memories. SIGNIFICANCE: This study on child pain memories is the first to highlight that characteristics of the social context, such as parental (non-)pain-related verbalizations, as well as factors related to the intra-individual experience of pain, such as child attention bias to pain, should be studied jointly, as they interact with each other in their effect on the emergence of negatively biased memories of painful events.
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 | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| 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".