Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37208455›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Cognitive exertion affects the appraisal of one's own and other people's pain.

Laura Riontino, Raphaël Fournier, Alexandra Lapteva, Nicolas Silvestrini, Sophie Schwartz, Corrado Corradi-Dell'Acqua

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Laura RiontinoDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Laura.Riontino@unige.ch.
Raphaël FournierDepartment of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Alexandra LaptevaUniversity of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Nicolas SilvestriniDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Sophie SchwartzDepartment of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Corrado Corradi-Dell'AcquaDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Correctly evaluating others' pain is a crucial prosocial ability. In both clinical and private settings, caregivers assess their other people's pain, sometimes under the effect of poor sleep and high workload and fatigue. However, the effect played by such cognitive strain in the appraisal of others' pain remains unclear. Fifty participants underwent one of two demanding tasks, involving either working memory (Experiment 1: N-Back task) or cognitive interference (Experiment 2: Stroop task). After each task, participants were exposed to painful laser stimulations at three intensity levels (low, medium, high), or video-clips of patients experiencing three intensity levels of pain (low, medium, high). Participants rated the intensity of each pain event on a visual analogue scale. We found that the two tasks influenced rating of both one's own and others' pain, by decreasing the sensitivity to medium and high events. This was observed either when comparing the demanding condition to a control (Stroop), or when modelling linearly the difficulty/performance of each depleting task (N-Back). We provide converging evidence that cognitive exertion affects the subsequent appraisal of one's own and likewise others' pain.

Indexed as

PainPhysical ExertionCognitionHumans

Identifiers

PMID37208455
PMCPMC10199047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.