Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37275368›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023

Subliminal attentional bias modification training for itch.

Jennifer M Becker, Dimitri M L Van Ryckeghem, Stefaan Van Damme, Geert Crombez, Yalou Schoot, Reinout W H J Wiers, Ralph C A Rippe, Antoinette I M van Laarhoven

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jennifer M BeckerHealth, Medical and Neuropsychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Science, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Dimitri M L Van RyckeghemDepartment of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Stefaan Van DammeDepartment of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Geert CrombezDepartment of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Yalou SchootHealth, Medical and Neuropsychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Science, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Reinout W H J WiersAddiction Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT) Laboratory, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ralph C A RippeResearch Methods and Statistics, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Institute of Education and Child Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Antoinette I M van LaarhovenHealth, Medical and Neuropsychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Science, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Leiden University · NLGhent University · BEUniversity of Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Luxembourg · LU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Itch is unpleasant and induces the urge to scratch. This is adaptive to remove the itch-inducing stimulus from the skin. Accordingly, itch draws attention to protect our bodily integrity. Recent studies investigated whether attention is preferentially drawn towards its location, i.e., attentional bias (AB), and also whether this bias could be changed in healthy individuals. So far, results are mixed concerning the existance of an attentional bias towards itch stimuli in healthy individuals as well as the impact of modifications. However, available studies have typically focused on conscious processing and might miss preconscious aspects of attention and potential biases at these stages. Methods: This study included 117 healthy individuals who underwent a subliminal Attentional Bias Modification (ABM)- training for itch based on a dot-probe paradigm with itch- related pictures. Participants were randomly assigned to a training towards itch group, a training away from itch group and a control group. This was done by manipulating the itch-target congruency of the dot-probe task during a training block. Pre- and post-training assessments were regular dot-probe tasks. Exploratorily, also attentional inhibition, cognitive flexibility and itch-related cognitions were assessed. Lastly, participants received an itchy stimulus on the inner forearm before and after the ABM-training to assess potential effects on itch sensitivity. Results: Results showed no AB towards itch across groups at baseline, i.e., pre-training, but an AB away from itch, hence, avoidance of itch, post-training. Further analyses showed that this effect was driven by an attentional bias away from itch in the control group, while there were no significant effects in the experimental groups. There was no effect on itch sensitivity. Conclusion: These findings are in line with recent studies on conscious ABM-training for itch and pain that also did not find significant training effects. Therefore, it is suggested that the field of AB might need to reconsider the current assessment of AB. Moreover, AB is probably a dynamic process that is highly dependent on current itch-related goals and relevance of itch in a specific situation. This suggests that processes probably differ in patients with chronic itch and that also ABM-training might work differently in these populations. Clinical trial registration: https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NTR7561, identifier NTR7561.

Indexed as

attentioncognitive biasexperimental psychologyitchprurituspsychodermatologyunconscious processing

Identifiers

PMID37275368
PMCPMC10232774
OpenAlexW4377104874

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.