Background:Social observation is one of the main ways to gain experience. Similar to first-person experience, observational experience affects the effectiveness of subsequent treatments. Yet, it is still undetermined whether the influence of social observation on placebo and nocebo effects to subsequent treatments remains even if related experience occurred a few days ago. Methods:Eighty-two participants were recruited and each of them was randomly assigned to one of the four experimental groups acquiring first-person or observational experience, which was either effective or ineffective. For the first-person groups, participants were presented with pain cues paired with pain stimuli in person. In the effective condition, low pain cues were paired with low pain stimuli, and high pain cues were paired with high pain stimuli. In contrast, the associations between cues and pain stimuli were not established in the ineffective condition. Similarly, for the observational groups, participants received effective/ineffective treatment through observation. Five or six days later, all participants underwent a conditioning phase followed by a test phase composed of two tests, where participants were asked to report their perceived pain. Results:Placebo and nocebo responses to subsequent treatments can be affected by prior experience gained several days ago regardless of acquisition ways, and both placebo and nocebo responses in the effective condition were significantly larger than those in the ineffective condition. Furthermore, once placebo and nocebo effects were elicited, the latter was more persistent, while the former was more likely to diminish. Conclusion:First-person and observational experience obtained a few days ago could affect the following treatments, which advance our understanding of the crucial and sustained influence of social observation on placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia, and provide insights into clinical applications.

译文

背景:社会观察是获得经验的主要途径之一。类似于第一人称体验,观察经历会影响后续治疗的有效性。然而,即使几天前发生了相关经历,社会观察对安慰剂和诺西博作用对后续治疗的影响是否仍然存在尚不确定。
方法:招募了八十二名参与者,将他们随机分配到四个获得第一人称或观察经验的实验组中的一个,该实验组有效或无效。对于第一人称组,向参与者展示了疼痛提示和亲自进行的疼痛刺激。在有效情况下,将低疼痛提示与低疼痛刺激配对,将高疼痛提示与高疼痛刺激配对。相反,提示和疼痛刺激之间的关联并未在无效条件下建立。同样,对于观察组,参与者通过观察获得了有效/无效的治疗。五六天后,所有参与者都经历了适应期,随后是由两个测试组成的测试阶段,其中要求参与者报告他们的感觉到的疼痛。
结果:几天前获得的经验可能会影响安慰剂和Nocebo对后续治疗的反应,而不论获取方式如何,并且有效条件下的安慰剂和Nocebo响应均显着大于无效条件下的安慰剂和Nocebo。此外,一旦引起安慰剂和Nocebo的作用,后者会更持久,而前者则更可能减少。
结论:几天前获得的第一人称和观察经验可能会影响以下治疗,这将使我们进一步了解社会观察对安慰剂镇痛和Nocebo痛觉过敏的关键和持续影响,并为临床应用提供见识。

+1
+2
100研值 100研值 ¥99课程
检索文献一次
下载文献一次

去下载>

成功解锁2个技能,为你点赞

《SCI写作十大必备语法》
解决你的SCI语法难题!

技能熟练度+1

视频课《玩转文献检索》
让你成为检索达人!

恭喜完成新手挑战

手机微信扫一扫,添加好友领取

免费领《Endnote文献管理工具+教程》

微信扫码, 免费领取

手机登录

获取验证码
登录