Trial Outcomes & Findings for Effects of Expectations on Negative Affect, Perceived Cognitive Effort, and Pain (NCT NCT05425563)
NCT ID: NCT05425563
Last Updated: 2023-11-30
Results Overview
The outcome measure is the "subjective outcome rating" for perceived pain. In each session, participants undergo pain tasks with multiple thermal stimuli. After each stimulus, participants rate their perceived pain on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater perceived pain. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average rating after high cue and after low cue. The final outcome is the difference between these averages, forming a contrast score that reflects the average difference in perceived pain as a function of high and low cue exposure. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened pain perception.
COMPLETED
NA
133 participants
Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, and contrasted to a single outcome measure: perceived pain as a function of high low cue exposure.
2023-11-30
Participant Flow
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Cue-established Expectations
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
133
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
116
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
17
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Cue-established Expectations
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
|
17
|
Baseline Characteristics
Effects of Expectations on Negative Affect, Perceived Cognitive Effort, and Pain
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Cue-established Expectations
n=116 Participants
Prior to experiencing the stimuli from three tasks (somatic pain/cognitive effort/vicarious pain), the participant is presented with an expectancy cue. The cue depicts 10 data points on a semi-circular scale (0-180 degrees) with categorical labels ranging from "no effort" to "strongest effort of any kind." Subsequently, participants report expectation ratings and outcome ratings.
Pain Expectancy Cues: Participants are presented with a social cue that represents how previous participants responded to the upcoming somatic pain stimulus. In actuality, the cue is a social placebo, constructed by the experimenters and varying in intensity.
Vicarious Pain Expectancy Cues: Participants are presented with a social cue that represents how previous participants responded to the upcoming vicarious pain stimulus. In actuality, the cue is a social placebo, constructed by the experimenters and varying in intensity.
Cognitive Effort Expectancy Cues: Participants are presented with a social cue that represents how previous participants responded to the upcoming cognitive effort stimulus. In actuality, the cue is a social placebo, constructed by the experimenters and varying in intensity.
|
|---|---|
|
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
|
0 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
|
116 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
|
0 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Age, Continuous
|
24.72 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.52 • n=93 Participants
|
|
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex/Gender · Male
|
45 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex/Gender · Female
|
69 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex/Gender · Other
|
2 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
|
17 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
|
97 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
2 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
|
1 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
|
15 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
1 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
|
3 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
|
86 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
|
7 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
3 Participants
n=93 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
United States
|
116 participants
n=93 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, and contrasted to a single outcome measure: perceived pain as a function of high low cue exposure.The outcome measure is the "subjective outcome rating" for perceived pain. In each session, participants undergo pain tasks with multiple thermal stimuli. After each stimulus, participants rate their perceived pain on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater perceived pain. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average rating after high cue and after low cue. The final outcome is the difference between these averages, forming a contrast score that reflects the average difference in perceived pain as a function of high and low cue exposure. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened pain perception.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Subjective Outcome Ratings of Acute Thermal Pain Following High Compared to Low Cues
|
8.20 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.89
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, and contrasted to a single outcome measure: perceived vicarious pain as a function of high low cue exposure.The outcome measure is the "subjective outcome rating" for perceived vicarious pain. In each session, participants undergo vicarious pain tasks, watching multiple videos of patients in pain. After each stimulus, participants rate their perceived vicarious pain on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate that participants perceived greater pain for the patient in video. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average outcome rating after high cue and after low cue. The final outcome is the difference between these averages, forming a contrast score that reflects the average difference in perceived vicarious pain as a function of high and low cue exposure. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened perception of vicarious pain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Subjective Outcome Ratings of Vicarious Pain Following High Compared to Low Cues
|
7.72 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.66
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, and contrasted to a single outcome measure: perceived cognitive effort as a function of high low cue exposure.The outcome measure is the "subjective outcome rating" for cognitive effort. In each session, participants undergo cognitive effort task where images of mentally rotated figures are presented. After each stimulus, participants rate their perceived cognitive effort on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater perceived of cognitive effort. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average outcome rating after high cue and after low cue. The final outcome is the difference between these averages, forming a contrast score that reflects the average difference in perceived cognitive effort as a function of high and low cue exposure. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened perception of cognitive effort..
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Subjective Ratings of Cognitive Effort Following High Compared to Low Cues
|
8.02 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.70
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, reflecting: perceived pain as a function of high cue exposure.This outcome measure is the least metabolized data of "subjective outcome rating" for perceived pain. In each session, participants undergo pain tasks with multiple thermal stimuli. After each stimulus, participants rate their perceived pain on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater perceived pain. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average rating after high cue and after low cue. Reported here is the average subjective outcome rating, post-high cue. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened pain perception.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Subjective Outcome Ratings of Acute Thermal Pain Following High Cues
|
70.22 units on a scale
Standard Error 2.85
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, reflecting: perceived pain as a function of low cue exposure.This outcome measure is the least metabolized data of "subjective outcome rating" for perceived pain. In each session, participants undergo pain tasks with multiple thermal stimuli. After each stimulus, participants rate their perceived pain on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater perceived pain. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average rating after high cue and after low cue. Reported here is the average subjective outcome rating post-low cue. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened pain perception.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Subjective Outcome Ratings of Acute Thermal Pain Following Low Cues
|
61.69 units on a scale
Standard Error 2.86
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, reflecting: perceived pain as a function of high cue exposure.The outcome measure is the least metabolized data of "subjective outcome rating" for perceived vicarious pain. In each session, participants undergo vicarious pain tasks, watching multiple videos of patients in pain. After each stimulus, participants rate their perceived vicarious pain on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate that participants perceived greater pain for the patient in video. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average outcome rating after high cue and after low cue. Reported here is the average subjective outcome rating post high cue. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened perception of vicarious pain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Subjective Outcome Ratings of Vicarious Pain Following High Cues
|
30.66 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.21
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, reflecting: perceived pain as a function of low cue exposure.The outcome measure is the least metabolized data of "subjective outcome rating" for perceived vicarious pain. In each session, participants undergo vicarious pain tasks, watching multiple videos of patients in pain. After each stimulus, participants rate their perceived vicarious pain on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate that participants perceived greater pain for the patient in video. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average outcome rating after high cue and after low cue. Reported here is the average subjective outcome rating post low cue. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened perception of vicarious pain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Subjective Outcome Ratings of Vicarious Pain Following Low Cues
|
22.78 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.04
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, reflecting: perceived pain as a function of high cue exposure.The outcome measure is the least metabolized data of "subjective outcome rating" for cognitive effort. In each session, participants undergo cognitive effort task where images of mentally rotated figures are presented. After each stimulus, participants rate their perceived cognitive effort on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater perceived of cognitive effort. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average outcome rating after high cue and after low cue. Reported here is the average subjective outcome rating post high cue. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened perception of cognitive effort.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Subjective Ratings of Cognitive Effort Following High Cues
|
32.35 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.38
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, reflecting: perceived pain as a function of low cue exposure.The outcome measure is the least metabolized data of "subjective outcome rating" for cognitive effort. In each session, participants undergo cognitive effort task where images of mentally rotated figures are presented. After each stimulus, participants rate their perceived cognitive effort on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater perceived of cognitive effort. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average outcome rating after high cue and after low cue. Reported here is the average subjective outcome rating post low cue. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened perception of cognitive effort.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Subjective Ratings of Cognitive Effort Following Low Cues
|
24.31 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.19
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, and contrasted to a single outcome measure: expectations of pain as a function of high low cue exposure.The outcome measure is the "expectation rating" for upcoming pain. In each session, participants undergo pain tasks with multiple thermal stimuli. Before each stimulus, participants see a high or low cue and rate their pain expectation on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater pain expectations. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average rating after high cue and after low cue. The final outcome is the difference between these averages, forming a contrast score that reflects the variance in pain expectations between cues. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened expectations for thermal pain intensity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Expectation Ratings of Acute Thermal Pain Following High Compared to Low Cues
|
35.06 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.99
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, and contrasted to a single outcome measure: expectations of vicarious pain as a function of high low cue exposure.The outcome measure is the "expectation rating" for upcoming vicarious pain. In each session, participants undergo vicarious pain tasks, watching multiple videos of patients in pain. Prior to each stimulus, participants see a high or low cue and rate their expectation of perceived vicarious pain for an upcoming stimulus experience on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles suggest participants anticipate viewing videos of patients experiencing greater pain. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average expectation rating after high cue and after low cue. The final outcome is the difference between these averages, forming a contrast score that reflects difference in vicarious pain expectations between cues. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened expectations for vicarious pain intensity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Expectation Ratings of Vicarious Pain Following High Compared to Low Cues
|
33.02 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.52
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected post-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, and contrasted to a single outcome measure: expectations of cognitive effort as a function of high low cue exposure.The outcome measure is the "expectation rating" for upcoming cognitive effort. In each session, participants undergo cognitive effort tasks where images of mentally rotated figures are presented. Before each stimulus, participants see a high or low cue and rate their expectations on cognitive effort on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater expectations of cognitive effort. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average expectation rating after high cue and after low cue. The final outcome is the difference between these averages, forming a contrast score that reflects the difference in cognitive effort expectations between cues. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened expectations of cognitive effort.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Expectation Ratings of Cognitive Effort Following High Compared to Low Cues
|
30.76 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.53
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected pre-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, and contrasted to a single outcome measure: expectations of pain as a function of high cue exposure.The outcome measure is the least metabolized data of "expectation rating" for upcoming pain. In each session, participants undergo pain tasks with multiple thermal stimuli. Before each stimulus, participants see a high or low cue and rate their pain expectation on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater pain expectations. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average rating after high cue and after low cue. Reported here is the average expectation rating, post-high cue. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened expectations for thermal pain intensity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Expectations Ratings of Acute Thermal Pain Following High Cues
|
79.46 units on a scale
Standard Error 2.86
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected pre-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, and contrasted to a single outcome measure: expectations of pain as a function of low cue exposure.The outcome measure is the least metabolized data of "expectation rating" for upcoming pain. In each session, participants undergo pain tasks with multiple thermal stimuli. Before each stimulus, participants see a high or low cue and rate their pain expectation on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater pain expectations. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average rating after high cue and after low cue. Reported here is the average expectation rating, post-low cue. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened expectations for thermal pain intensity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Expectations Ratings of Acute Thermal Pain Following Low Cues
|
44.65 units on a scale
Standard Error 3.02
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected pre-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, reflecting perceived vicarious pain as a function of high cue exposure.The outcome measure is the least metabolized data of "expectation rating" for upcoming vicarious pain. In each session, participants undergo vicarious pain tasks, watching multiple videos of patients in pain. Prior to each stimulus, participants see a high or low cue and rate their expectation of perceived vicarious pain for an upcoming stimulus experience on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles suggest participants anticipate viewing videos of patients experiencing greater pain. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average expectation rating after high cue and after low cue. Reported here is the average expectation rating, post-high cue. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened expectations for vicarious pain intensity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Expectation Ratings of Vicarious Pain Following High Cues
|
48.21 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.56
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected pre-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, reflecting perceived vicarious pain as a function of low cue exposure.The outcome measure is the least metabolized data of "expectation rating" for upcoming vicarious pain. In each session, participants undergo vicarious pain tasks, watching multiple videos of patients in pain. Prior to each stimulus, participants see a high or low cue and rate their expectation of perceived vicarious pain for an upcoming stimulus experience on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles suggest participants anticipate viewing videos of patients experiencing greater pain. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average expectation rating after high cue and after low cue. Reported here is the average expectation rating, post-low cue. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened expectations for vicarious pain intensity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Expectation Ratings of Vicarious Pain Following Low Cues
|
14.96 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.01
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected pre-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, reflecting: perceived pain as a function of high cue exposure.The outcome measure is the least metabolized data of "expectation rating" for upcoming cognitive effort. In each session, participants undergo cognitive effort tasks where images of mentally rotated figures are presented. Before each stimulus, participants see a high or low cue and rate their expectations on cognitive effort on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater expectations of cognitive effort. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average expectation rating after high cue and after low cue. Reported here is the average expectation rating, post-high cue. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened expectations for cognitive effort.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Expectation Ratings of Cognitive Effort Following High Cues
|
49.39 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.74
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Within trials, outcome ratings are collected pre-stimulus (4s window); Trials are collected across 3 sessions. Ratings are then averaged, reflecting: perceived pain as a function of low cue exposure.The outcome measure is the least metabolized data of "expectation rating" for upcoming cognitive effort. In each session, participants undergo cognitive effort tasks where images of mentally rotated figures are presented. Before each stimulus, participants see a high or low cue and rate their expectations on cognitive effort on a semi-circular scale (0-180°). Higher angles indicate greater expectations of cognitive effort. The "Outcome Measure Calculation": Ratings are grouped by cue type: High or Low. Data points in each group are averaged across sessions, yielding two measures: average expectation rating after high cue and after low cue. Reported here is the average expectation rating, post-low cue. * Scale: 0-180° * Min value: 0 * Max value: 180 * Higher scores indicate heightened expectations for cognitive effort.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pain Task; Cue-modulated Stimulus Intensity
n=116 Participants
Participants view a cue that informs them of an upcoming stimulus intensity. The purpose is to identify whether different cue levels modulate stimulus experience across somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort domains.
|
|---|---|
|
Behavioral: Within Participant Expectation Ratings of Cognitive Effort Following Low Cues
|
18.60 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.21
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Measured continuously during each task, concurrent with stimulus delivery. Each task is distributed across 3 sessions. Within each task, we plan to average skin conductance rate across sessions.Each session of the experiment includes somatic pain, vicarious pain, cognitive effort tasks, in which multiple stimuli are delivered. Skin conductance response will be measured continuously, using a physiological data acquisition device, "Biopac MP150". The investigators will compare the skin conductance rate in response to stimuli delivery as a function high vs. low cue presentation.
Outcome measures
Outcome data not reported
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Measured continuously during each task, concurrent with stimulus delivery. Each task is distributed across 3 sessions. Within each task, we plan to average skin conductance rate across sessions.Each session of the experiment includes somatic pain, vicarious pain, cognitive effort tasks, in which multiple stimuli are delivered. Skin conductance rate will be measured continuously, using a physiological data acquisition device, "Biopac MP150". The investigators will compare the skin conductance rate in response to stimuli delivery as a function high vs. low cue presentation.
Outcome measures
Outcome data not reported
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Measured continuously during stimulus delivery, 1 hour of functional magnetic resonance imaging scanning. Each scan is conducted across 3 sessions.After each stimulus delivery, participants are prompted to indicate outcome ratings, i.e. the intensity of their stimulus experience. Ratings are recorded on a semi-circular scale (0-180 degrees), with categorical labels indicated on the scale (e.g. "no sensation" to "strongest sensation of any kind"). The investigators will analyze stimulus brain signal as a function of high vs. med vs. low stimulus intensity. We plan to construct contrasts of stimulus brain maps based on stimulus intensity of high vs. med vs. low.
Outcome measures
Outcome data not reported
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Measured continuously during stimulus delivery, 1 hour of functional magnetic resonance imaging scanning. Each scan is conducted across 3 sessions.Investigator will model the brain event of each stimulus delivery event. From this, investigator will construct contrasts between stimulus brain maps as a function of high vs. low cue. Within each task of somatic pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort, we plan to both 1) average brain signals and 3) also isolate each event for further analyses.
Outcome measures
Outcome data not reported
Adverse Events
Cue-established Expectations
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place