ABSTRACT
Although many studies have investigated the effectiveness of distraction as a method of pain control, the cognitive processes by which attentional re-direction is achieved, remain unclear. In this study the role of executive functioning abilities (inhibition, task switching and working memory) in the effectiveness of distraction is investigated. We hypothesized that the effectiveness of distraction in terms of pain reduction would be larger in participants with better executive functioning abilities. Ninety-one undergraduate students first performed executive functioning tasks, and subsequently participated in a cold pressor task (CPT). Participants were randomly assigned to (1) a distraction group, in which an attention-demanding tone-detection task was performed during the CPT, or (2) a control group, in which no distraction task was performed. Participants in the distraction group reported significantly less pain during the CPT, but the pain experience was not influenced by executive functioning abilities. However, the performance on the distraction task improved with better inhibition abilities, indicating that inhibition abilities might be important in focussing on a task despite the pain.
Subject(s)
Analgesia/methods , Attention/physiology , Executive Function/physiology , Memory, Short-Term/physiology , Neural Inhibition/physiology , Pain Management/methods , Pain/prevention & control , Pain/psychology , Adolescent , Cognition/physiology , Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control/physiology , Female , Humans , Male , Pain/physiopathology , Perceptual Masking/physiology , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the amplitude, latency, morphology, scalp topography and intracranial generators of laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) to CO(2) and Nd:YAP laser stimuli. METHODS: LEPs were assessed in 11 healthy subjects (6 men, mean age 39+/-10 years) using a 32-channel acquisition system. Laser stimuli were delivered on the dorsum of both hands (intensity slightly above pain threshold), and permitted to obtain lateralised (N1) and vertex components (N2-P2) with similar scalp distribution for both types of lasers. RESULTS: The N1-YAP had similar latencies but significantly higher amplitudes relative to N1-CO(2). The N2-P2 complex showed earlier latencies, higher amplitudes (N2) and more synchronised responses when using Nd:YAP stimulation. The distribution of intracranial generators assessed with source localization analyses (sLORETA) was similar for Nd:YAP and CO(2) lasers. The insular, opercular, and primary sensorimotor cortices were active during the N1 time-window, whereas the anterior midcingulate, supplementary motor areas and mid-anterior insulae were active concomitant to the N2-P2 complex. CONCLUSIONS: Earlier latencies and larger amplitudes recorded when using Nd:YAP pulses suggest a more synchronized nociceptive afferent volley with this type of laser. SIGNIFICANCE: This, together with its handy utilization due to optic fibre transmission, may favour the use of Nd:YAP lasers in clinical settings.