Comparisons of lumbosacral kinematics among non-specific chronic low back pain subgroups and healthy during prolonged sitting: A cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: The literature has suggested a variety of postural changes of the spine that possibly contribute to the increase in back pain during sitting in persons with non-specific chronic low back pain (NS-CLBP). However, the heterogeneity of NS-CLBP persons has made the ability to attribute pain increase to a particular sitting posture very difficult. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare lumbosacral kinematics and their roles in pain increase among homogenous NS-CLBP subgroups and healthy controls over a 1-h sitting period. METHODS: Twenty NS-CLBP subjects with motor control impairment [10 classified as having flexion pattern (FP) disorder, and 10 with active extension pattern (AEP) disorder], and 10 healthy controls participated in the study. Subjects underwent a 1-h sitting protocol on a standard office chair. Lumbosacral postures including sacral tilt, third lumbar vertebrae (L3) position, and relative lower lumbar angle were recorded using two-dimensional inclinometers over the 1-h period. Perceived back-pain intensity was measured using a visual analog scale every 10 min throughout the sitting period. RESULTS: All study groups (FP, AEP and healthy controls) significantly differed from each other in the measured lumbosacral kinematics at the beginning as well as at the end of the sitting period (p ≤ 0.05). Only the NS-CLBP subgroups showed significant changes in the lumbosacral kinematics across the 1-h sitting period (p < 0.01), and that the directions of change occurred toward end spinal postures (lumbar kyphosis for FP subgroup and lumbar lordosis for the AEP subgroup). In addition, both NS-CLBP subgroups reported a similarly significant increase in pain through mid-sitting (p < 0.001). However, after mid-sitting, the AEP subgroup reported much less increase in pain level that was accompanied by a significant decrease in the lumbar lordotic postures (p = 0.001) compared to FP subgroup. CONCLUSION: The present study's findings suggest that each NS-CLBP subgroup presented with differently inherent sitting postures. These inherently dysfunctional postures coupled with the directional changes in the lumbosacral kinematics toward the extreme ranges across the 1-h sitting period, might explain the significant increase in pain among subgroups.

Non-clinical hallucinations and mental imagery across sensory modalities.

INTRODUCTION: Vivid mental imagery has been proposed to increase the likelihood of experiencing hallucinations. Typically, studies have employed a modality general approach to mental imagery which compares imagery across multiple domains (e.g., visual, auditory and tactile) to hallucinations in multiple senses. However, modality specific imagery may be a better predictor of hallucinations in the same domain. The study examined the contribution of imagery to hallucinations in a non-clinical sample and specifically whether imagery best predicted hallucinations at a modality general or modality specific level. METHODS: In study one, modality general and modality specific accounts of the imagery-hallucination relationship were contrasted through application of self-report measures in a sample of 434 students. Study two used a subsample (n = 103) to extend exploration of the imagery-hallucinations relationship using a performance-based imagery task. RESULTS: A small to moderate modality general relationship was observed between self-report imagery and hallucination proneness. There was only evidence of a modality specific relationship in the tactile domain. Performance-based imagery measures were unrelated to hallucinations and self-report imagery. CONCLUSIONS: Mental imagery may act as a modality general process increasing hallucination proneness. The observed distinction between self-report and performance-based imagery highlights the difficulty of accurately measuring internal processes.

Reality monitoring performance and the role of visual imagery in visual hallucinations.

BACKGROUND: Auditory Hallucinations may arise from people confusing their own inner speech with external spoken speech. People with visual hallucinations (VH) may similarly confuse vivid mental imagery with external events. This paper reports two experiments exploring confusion between internal and external visual material. METHOD: Experiment 1 examined reality monitoring in people with psychosis; those with visual hallucinations (n = 16) and those without (n = 15). Experiment 2 used two non-clinical groups of people with high or low predisposition to VH (HVH, n = 26, LVH, n = 21). All participants completed the same reality monitoring task. Participants in Experiment 2 also completed measures of imagery. RESULTS: Psychosis patients with VH demonstrated biased reality monitoring, where they misremembered items that had been presented as words as having been presented as pictures. Patients without VH did not show this bias. In Experiment 2, the HVH group demonstrated the same bias in reality monitoring that psychosis patients with VH had shown. The LVH group did not show this bias. In addition, the HVH group reported more vivid imagery and particularly more negative imagery. CONCLUSIONS: Both studies found that people with visual hallucinations or prone-ness to such experiences confused their inner visual experiences with external images. Vivid imagery was also related to proneness to VH. Hence, vivid imagery and reality monitoring confusion could be contributory factors to understanding VH.

An experimental investigation into the role of ruminative and mindful self-focus in non-clinical paranoia.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Ruminative self-focus is a maladaptive form of emotional processing and is linked to distress, whereas mindful self-focus is adaptive and linked to low distress. However, the effects of these different modes of self-focus have not yet been examined in symptoms associated with psychotic disorders, such as paranoid ideation. This study aimed to explore whether inducing ruminative self-focus maintains paranoid ideation whilst inducing mindful self-focus reduces paranoid ideation. METHOD: Thirty-two non-clinical participants engaged in a paranoia induction prime and then took part in an eight-minute ruminative self-focus induction and an eight-minute mindful self-focus induction. RESULTS: Following an induction of paranoia, mindful self-focus significantly decreased levels of paranoia, whereas ruminative self-focus had no significant impact on levels of paranoia, and therefore was interpreted as having maintained paranoia. LIMITATIONS: The study used non clinical participants and the level of paranoid ideation experienced was fairly mild, which limits generalisation to clinical levels of distress. Additionally, the mechanism by which rumination and mindful self-focus have their effects was not examined. CONCLUSIONS: The results add to the growing body of evidence that there are two distinct modes of self-focus that have differential effects on emotional processing. These findings also demonstrate the potential benefit of interventions targeting rumination in paranoid ideation with mindful self-focus.