Trial reportPloS one2018
Does attention bias modification training impact on task performance in the context of pain: An experimental study in healthy participants.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring pain sensitivity changes after acceptance and attention bias modification trainings: preliminary evidence on fear of pain and attention bias.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Neural mechanisms underlying attentional bias modification in fibromyalgia patients: a double-blind ERP study.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Effects of attentional bias modification on chronic low back pain in older outpatients: A randomized crossover trial (pilot study).Medicine · 2021Trial
- Article
- Article
- Subliminal attentional bias modification training for itch.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Attentional Bias Modification Training for Itch: A Proof-of-Principle Study in Healthy Individuals.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- What is new in the psychology of chronic itch?Experimental dermatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Attention has been theorized to play a key role in the experience of pain and associated task interference. Training attention away from pain via attention bias modification (ABM) training techniques has been proposed to improve pain-related outcomes, but evidence is inconsistent. In an experimental study, we investigated the impact of a single session ABM training -using a visual probe paradigm with idiosyncratic pain words- on cold pressor test (CPT) pain experience and task interference by pain. Fifty-eight healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to an ABM training group (N = 28; attending away from pain) and a sham training group (N = 30; no training direction). At pre-training, participants performed a baseline Random-Interval-Repetition (RIR) task and the CPT. Participants reported on sensations they experienced during the baseline CPT. Relevant descriptors were integrated in the visual probe paradigm during the training phase. At post-training, participants completed the RIR task again while experiencing CPT pain. Participants also reported on the extent they attended to the pain and the intensity/unpleasantness of the pain. Results indicated that, in contrast with our hypotheses, ABM training did also not reduce task interference due to CPT pain. Furthermore, ABM training did not change self-reported attending to CPT pain. Finally, ABM training did not reduce CPT pain intensity or pain unpleasantness. Overall, the current study provides no support for the effectiveness of a single session ABM training in improving pain-related outcomes. Future research addressing the conditions under which ABM training improves or fails to improve pain-related outcomes is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.