ArticlePloS one2026
The involvement of attentional biases in endogenous pain inhibition and autonomic reactivity.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAttention is a key factor in shaping pain perception and modulation, yet its role in explaining individual differences in endogenous pain inhibition-commonly assessed in humans using conditioned pain modulation (CPM)-remains poorly understood. While studies show that attentional focus during dual pain stimulation can influence CPM efficacy, the contribution of attentional biases has not been examined. In addition, although psychological traits and autonomic nervous system activity have both been linked to CPM, their relative contributions to individual variability remain unclear. The present study examined whether attentional biases predict individual differences in pain sensitivity and endogenous pain modulation, and whether psychological, emotional, and autonomic factors are associated with these outcomes.
methodsEighty-six healthy women completed psychological questionnaires assessing anxiety, depression, and fear of pain. They also performed two modified attentional bias tasks: a novel perceptual load task and a dot-probe task. Quantitative sensory testing included pain ratings of suprathreshold tonic heat pain alone and under conditioning (CPM paradigm). Heart rate (HR) was measured at baseline, during, and after both test-stimulus alone and under conditioning.
resultsGreater interference from pain-related cues under high perceptual load was linked to increased pain sensitivity, whereas greater attentional avoidance in the dot-probe task was associated with higher fear of pain. In contrast, none of the examined factors predicted CPM magnitude. HR increased during the test-stimulus under conditioning and remained elevated in recovery. Exploratory analyses further showed that higher emotional distress was related to blunted HR during test-stimulus under conditioning, and that both perceptual load interference and attentional avoidance predicted elevated HR during recovery.
conclusionsAttentional biases to pain predicted pain sensitivity beyond psychological and autonomic influences. Although unrelated to CPM, they were associated with HR dynamics, suggesting a role in autonomic regulation during pain and recovery.
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.