The Journal of Pain
Volume 2, Issue 5 , Pages 279-294, October 2001

Sensory and affective dimensions of phasic pain are indistinguishable in the self-report and psychophysiology of normal laboratory subjects☆☆

  • C.Richard Chapman

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
  • ,
  • Yoshio Nakamura

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington
  • ,
  • Gary W. Donaldson

      Affiliations

    • Division of Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
  • ,
  • Robert C. Jacobson

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington
    • Division of Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
  • ,
  • David H. Bradshaw

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington
    • Division of Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
  • ,
  • Leticia Flores

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington
  • ,
  • Christopher N. Chapman

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington

Received 28 August 2000; received in revised form 30 October 2000; accepted 30 January 2001.

Abstract 

This study evaluated the discriminant validity of subjects differentially scaling the sensory and affective dimensions of pain. It sought to determine (1) whether subjects can differentially scale sensory and affective aspects of phasic laboratory pain in the absence of task demand bias that fosters apparent differential scaling; (2) whether psychophysiologic responses to painful stimuli can predict pain report (PR); and (3) whether such responses contribute more to affective than to sensory judgments. Fifty-six men and 44 women repeatedly experienced varied painful electrical fingertip stimuli at low, medium, and high intensities. On half of the trial blocks, subjects made sensory judgments; on the remainder they made affective judgments. Response measures included PR, pupil dilation, heart rate, respiration rate, skin conductance response (SCR), and late near field evoked potentials. Subjects did not rate the stimuli differently when making sensory versus affective judgments. The psychophysiologic variables, principally the SCR, accounted for 44% of the variance in the PR. Psychophysiologic response patterns did not differentiate affective and sensory judgment conditions. Noteworthy sources of individual differences included baseline PR levels and the linear effects of SCR on PR. © 2001 by the American Pain Society

Keywords:  Pain, sensory, affective, psychophysiology, self-report, task demand

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported by a grant to C.R.C. from the National Cancer Institute, CA 74249.

☆☆ Address reprint requests to C. Richard Chapman, PhD, Pain Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, 615 Arapeen Dr, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT 84108.

 1526-5900/01/0205-0004$35.00/0

PII: S1526-5900(01)14191-X

doi:10.1054/jpai.2001.25529

The Journal of Pain
Volume 2, Issue 5 , Pages 279-294, October 2001