Development and Evaluation of Linguistic Stimuli for Pain Research.

Linguistic stimuli are commonly used in research to investigate the processing of pain. To provide researchers with a dataset of pain-related and non-pain-related linguistic stimuli, this research investigated 1) the associative strength between pain-related words and the pain construct; 2) the pain-relatedness ratings of pain words; and 3) the variability in the relatedness of pain words within pain word classifications (eg, sensory pain words). In Study 1, 194 pain-related and matched non-pain-related words were retrieved by reviewing the pain-related attentional bias literature. In Study 2, adults with (n = 85) and without (n = 48) self-reported chronic pain completed a speeded word categorization paradigm and rated the pain-relatedness of a subset of pain words. Analyses revealed that 1) despite differences in associative strength of 11.3% of the words between chronic and non-chronic pain groups, no overall group difference was found, 2) the chronic pain group rated the pain words as more pain-related compared to the non-chronic pain group, and 3) there was variability in the relatedness of pain words within pain word classifications. The findings highlight the importance of validating linguistic pain stimuli. The resulting dataset is openly accessible and new published sets can be added to the Linguistic Materials for Pain (LMaP) Repository. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the development and preliminary evaluation of a large pool of pain-related and non-pain-related words in adults with and without self-reported chronic pain. Findings are discussed and guidelines are offered to select the most suitable stimuli for future research.

Gamified Web-Delivered Attentional Bias Modification Training for Adults With Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: To date, research has found variable success in using attentional bias modification training (ABMT) procedures in pain samples. Several factors could contribute to these mixed findings, including boredom and low motivation. Indeed, training paradigms are repetitive, which can lead to disengagement and high dropout rates. A potential approach to overcoming some of these barriers is to attempt to increase motivation and engagement through gamification (ie, the use of game elements) of this procedure. To date, research has yet to explore the gamified format of ABMT for chronic pain and its potential for the transfer of benefits. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of a gamified web-delivered ABMT intervention in a sample of adults with chronic pain via a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 120 adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain, recruited from clinical (hospital outpatient waiting list) and nonclinical (wider community) settings, will be included in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-arm trial. Participants will be randomly assigned to complete 6 web-based sessions of dot-probe nongamified sham control ABMT, nongamified standard ABMT, or gamified ABMT across a period of 3 weeks. Active ABMT conditions will aim to train attention away from pain-relevant words. Participant outcomes will be assessed at pretraining, during training, immediately after training, and at the 1-month follow-up. Primary outcomes include pain intensity, pain interference, and behavioral and self-reported engagement. Secondary outcomes include attentional bias for pain, anxiety, depression, interpretation bias for pain, and perceived improvement. RESULTS: The ethical aspects of this research project have been approved by the human research ethics committees of the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (HREC/2020/QRBW/61743) and Queensland University of Technology (2000000395). Study recruitment commenced in August 2021 and is ongoing. Data collection and analysis are expected to be concluded by October 2022 and January 2023, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will be the first to evaluate the effects of gamification techniques in a pain ABMT intervention. The findings will provide important information on the potential therapeutic benefits of gamified pain ABMT programs, shed light on the motivational influences of certain game elements in the context of pain, and advance our understanding of chronic pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000803998; https://anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12620000803998.aspx. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/32359.

The Effects of Gamification on Computerized Cognitive Training: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing interest in the application of gamification (ie, the use of game elements) to computerized cognitive training. The introduction of targeted gamification features to such tasks may increase motivation and engagement as well as improve intervention effects. However, it is possible that game elements can also have adverse effects on cognitive training (eg, be a distraction), which can outweigh their potential motivational benefits. So far, little is known about the effectiveness of such applications. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of gamification on process outcomes (eg, motivation) and on changes in the training domain (eg, cognition), as well as to explore the role of potential moderators. METHODS: We searched PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Psychology, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, Association for Computing Machinery, and a range of gray-area literature databases. The searches included papers published between 2008 and 2018. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 49 studies, of which 9 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the review indicated that research in this context is still developing and lacks well-controlled empirical studies. Gamification in cognitive training is applied to a large range of age groups and audiences and is mostly delivered at a research site through computers. Rewards and feedback continue to dominate the gamification landscape, whereas social-oriented features (eg, competition) are underused. The meta-analyses showed that gamified training tasks were more motivating/engaging (Hedges g=0.72) and more demanding/difficult (Hedges g=-0.52) than non- or less-gamified tasks, whereas no effects on the training domain were found. Furthermore, no variables moderated the impact of gamified training tasks. However, meta-analytic findings were limited due to a small number of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this review provides an overview of the existing research in the domain and provides evidence for the effectiveness of gamification in improving motivation/engagement in the context of cognitive training. We discuss the shortcomings in the current literature and provide recommendations for future research.