The Effect of Alexithymia, Attention, and Pain Characteristics on Mentalizing Abilities Among Adults With Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Impaired mentalizing abilities are found among persons with chronic pain, yet it is still unknown why. The current study focuses on mentalizing abilities and how these could be affected by different pain factors, alexithymia traits, and other aspects of psychological functioning (depression, anxiety, attention) in persons experiencing chronic pain. Methods: 71 participants (80.3% female; mean age 56.1 (SD = 13.1)) with subjectively reported chronic pain conditions participated in the study. Mentalizing abilities were assessed using an objective assessment of the Frith-Happé animations test. Alexithymia was measured using Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Subjectively reported data on various pain characteristics and other related psychological factors (depression, anxiety, attention) were collected. Bivariate linear regression analyses were used to identify variables that had statistically significant relationships with Frith-Happé test scores as dependent variables, which were then used to build multivariate models. Results: Mentalization task scores had no significant associations with alexithymia. However, in bivariate models, greater Frith-Happé animations categorisation score was associated with higher attention task scores (βs = .332, p = .005), higher education (βs = .317, p = .007), and lower level of depressiveness (βs = −.234, p = .049). Greater animations feelings scores were associated with less severe pain intensity (βs = −.322, p = .006), younger age (βs = −.399, p = .001), and better attention (βs = .383, p = .001). In multivariate analysis models predicting both animations categorisation and feelings scores, attention was found to be the only statistically significant factor (respectively, βs = .257, p = .029 and βs = .264, p = .035). Conclusions: No significant correlations were found between mentalizing abilities and alexithymic features in persons with chronic pain. Disruptions of attention was the most significant factor leading to lower mentalizing abilities in persons with chronic pain.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".