Journal Home > Volume 8 , Issue 1
Brain Science Advances 2022, 8(1): 38-49 https://doi.org/10.26599/BSA.2022.9050005
Research Article | Open Access | Issue | Published: 22 May 2022

Ongoing pain facilitates emotional decision-making behaviors

Show Author's Information Chennan Lin,  Shiwei Zhuo,  Weiwei Peng( )
School of Psychology, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, Guangdong, China
Keywords:
decision-making, pain, Iowa Gambling Task
Cite this article:
Lin C, Zhuo S, Peng W. Ongoing pain facilitates emotional decision-making behaviors. Brain Science Advances, 2022, 8(1): 38-49. https://doi.org/10.26599/BSA.2022.9050005
Download citation
EndNote(RIS)
BibTeX

712

Views

74

Downloads

Citations

3

Crossref

N/A

WoS

N/A

Scopus

N/A

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article

Emotion toward anticipated and actual outcomes acts as a vital signal on emotional decision-making, and the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) can mimic this decision-making process. Pain can impair emotional decision-making behaviors because it captures attention and distracts from the task at hand. Alternatively, pain may facilitate emotional decision-making behaviors by prompting alertness and mobilizing cognitive resources to maximize rewards. The present study investigated the influence of ongoing pain on emotional decision-making behaviors using the IGT. Our study recruited two groups of participants and applied capsaicin (pain group) or control cream (control group) to their forearms. We then compared performances and selections between the pain and control groups. The results revealed that participants successfully learned the required adaptive selection strategy as the task progressed. The study observed a tendency toward optimal choices for both groups under the condition of frequent-small losses. However, we observed a disadvantageous preference for the control group, but not the pain group, when faced with choices with infrequent but large losses. The study implies that a distressing pain experience motivates individuals to adjust goal-directed behaviors to maximize their rewards in a task. Thus, the finding suggests that ongoing pain facilitates emotional decision-making behaviors.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

Ongoing pain facilitates emotional decision-making behaviors

Show Author's information Chennan Lin, Shiwei Zhuo, Weiwei Peng( )
School of Psychology, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, Guangdong, China

Abstract

Emotion toward anticipated and actual outcomes acts as a vital signal on emotional decision-making, and the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) can mimic this decision-making process. Pain can impair emotional decision-making behaviors because it captures attention and distracts from the task at hand. Alternatively, pain may facilitate emotional decision-making behaviors by prompting alertness and mobilizing cognitive resources to maximize rewards. The present study investigated the influence of ongoing pain on emotional decision-making behaviors using the IGT. Our study recruited two groups of participants and applied capsaicin (pain group) or control cream (control group) to their forearms. We then compared performances and selections between the pain and control groups. The results revealed that participants successfully learned the required adaptive selection strategy as the task progressed. The study observed a tendency toward optimal choices for both groups under the condition of frequent-small losses. However, we observed a disadvantageous preference for the control group, but not the pain group, when faced with choices with infrequent but large losses. The study implies that a distressing pain experience motivates individuals to adjust goal-directed behaviors to maximize their rewards in a task. Thus, the finding suggests that ongoing pain facilitates emotional decision-making behaviors.

Keywords: decision-making, pain, Iowa Gambling Task

References(53)

[1]
Séguin JR, Arseneault L, Tremblay RE. The contribution of “cool” and “hot” components of decision-making in adolescence: implications for developmental psychopathology. Cogn Dev 2007, 22(4): 530-543.
DOI Google Scholar
[2]
Krain AL, Wilson AM, Arbuckle R, et al. Distinct neural mechanisms of risk and ambiguity: a meta- analysis of decision-making. Neuroimage 2006, 32(1): 477-484.
DOI Google Scholar
[3]
Lee Y, Kim YT, Seo E, et al. Dissociation of emotional decision-making from cognitive decision-making in chronic schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 2007, 152(2/3): 113-120.
DOI Google Scholar
[4]
Turnbull OH, Evans CE, Bunce A, et al. Emotion- based learning and central executive resources: an investigation of intuition and the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain Cogn 2005, 57(3): 244-247.
DOI Google Scholar
[5]
Quartz SR. Reason, emotion and decision-making: risk and reward computation with feeling. Trends Cogn Sci 2009, 13(5): 209-215.
DOI Google Scholar
[6]
Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, et al. Emotion and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 2015, 66: 799-823.
DOI Google Scholar
[7]
Damasio AR. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam, 1994, p 352.
[8]
Damasio AR. The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1996, 351(1346): 1413-1420.
DOI Google Scholar
[9]
Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, et al. Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science 1997, 275(5304): 1293-1295.
DOI Google Scholar
[10]
Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, et al. The Iowa Gambling Task and the somatic marker hypothesis: some questions and answers. Trends Cogn Sci 2005, 9(4): 159-164.
DOI Google Scholar
[11]
Kerr A, Zelazo PD. Development of “hot” executive function: the children's gambling task. Brain Cogn 2004, 55(1): 148-157.
DOI Google Scholar
[12]
Premkumar P, Fannon D, Kuipers E, et al. Emotional decision-making and its dissociable components in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: a behavioural and MRI investigation. Neuropsychologia 2008, 46(7): 2002-2012.
DOI Google Scholar
[13]
Bechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, et al. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition 1994, 50(1/2/3): 7-15.
DOI Google Scholar
[14]
Bechara A, Damasio H, Damasio AR. Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cereb Cortex 2000, 10(3): 295-307.
DOI Google Scholar
[15]
Apkarian AV, Sosa Y, Krauss BR, et al. Chronic pain patients are impaired on an emotional decision-making task. Pain 2004, 108(1/2): 129-136.
DOI Google Scholar
[16]
Shah P, Catmur C, Bird G. Emotional decision-making in autism spectrum disorder: the roles of interoception and alexithymia. Mol Autism 2016, 7: 43.
DOI Google Scholar
[17]
Walteros C, Sánchez-Navarro JP, Muñoz MA, et al. Altered associative learning and emotional decision making in fibromyalgia. J Psychosom Res 2011, 70(3): 294-301.
DOI Google Scholar
[18]
Xu PF, Gu RL, Broster LS, et al. Neural basis of emotional decision making in trait anxiety. J Neurosci 2013, 33(47): 18641-18653.
DOI Google Scholar
[19]
Simons LE, Elman I, Borsook D. Psychological processing in chronic pain: a neural systems approach. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2014, 39: 61-78.
DOI Google Scholar
[20]
Phelps CE, Navratilova E, Porreca F. Cognition in the chronic pain experience: preclinical insights. Trends Cogn Sci 2021, 25(5): 365-376.
DOI Google Scholar
[21]
Tamburin S, Maier A, Schiff S, et al. Cognition and emotional decision-making in chronic low back pain: an ERPs study during Iowa gambling task. Front Psychol 2014, 5: 1350.
DOI Google Scholar
[22]
Attridge N, Pickering J, Inglis M, et al. People in pain make poorer decisions. Pain 2019, 160(7): 1662-1669.
DOI Google Scholar
[23]
Eccleston C. Chronic pain and distraction: an experimental investigation into the role of sustained and shifting attention in the processing of chronic persistent pain. Behav Res Ther 1995, 33(4): 391-405.
DOI Google Scholar
[24]
Eccleston C, Crombez G. Pain demands attention: a cognitive-affective model of the interruptive function of pain. Psychol Bull 1999, 125(3): 356-366.
DOI Google Scholar
[25]
Legrain V, Damme SV, Eccleston C, et al. A neurocognitive model of attention to pain: behavioral and neuroimaging evidence. Pain 2009, 144(3): 230-232.
DOI Google Scholar
[26]
Byrne KA, Cornwall AC, Worthy DA. Acute stress improves long-term reward maximization in decision- making under uncertainty. Brain Cogn 2019, 133: 84-93.
DOI Google Scholar
[27]
Byrne KA, Peters C, Willis HC, et al. Acute stress enhances tolerance of uncertainty during decision- making. Cognition 2020, 205: 104448.
DOI Google Scholar
[28]
Bonavita V, de Simone R. Pain as an evolutionary necessity. Neurol Sci 2011, 32(Suppl 1): S61-S66.
DOI Google Scholar
[29]
Bastian B, Jetten J, Hornsey MJ, et al. The positive consequences of pain: a biopsychosocial approach. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2014, 18(3): 256-279.
DOI Google Scholar
[30]
Wang CB, Zhang TY, Shan Z, et al. Dynamic interpersonal neural synchronization underlying pain- induced cooperation in females. Hum Brain Mapp 2019, 40(11): 3222-3232.
DOI Google Scholar
[31]
Wang CB, Bao CF, Gao JT, et al. Pain modulates neural responses to reward in the medial prefrontal cortex. Hum Brain Mapp 2020, 41(5): 1372-1381.
DOI Google Scholar
[32]
Northoff G, Grimm S, Boeker H, et al. Affective judgment and beneficial decision making: ventromedial prefrontal activity correlates with performance in the Iowa Gambling Task. Hum Brain Mapp 2006, 27(7): 572-587.
DOI Google Scholar
[33]
Miller LR, Cano A. Comorbid chronic pain and depression: who is at risk? J Pain 2009, 10(6): 619-627.
DOI Google Scholar
[34]
Peres MFP, Mercante JPP, Tobo PR, et al. Anxiety and depression symptoms and migraine: a symptom- based approach research. J Headache Pain 2017, 18(1): 37.
DOI Google Scholar
[35]
Bishop SJ, Gagne C. Anxiety, depression, and decision making: a computational perspective. Annu Rev Neurosci 2018, 41: 371-388.
DOI Google Scholar
[36]
Barnhart WR, Buelow MT, Trost Z. Effects of acute pain and pain-related fear on risky decision-making and effort during cognitive tests. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2019, 41(10): 1033-1047.
DOI Google Scholar
[37]
Lenow JK, Constantino SM, Daw ND, et al. Chronic and acute stress promote overexploitation in serial decision making. J Neurosci 2017, 37(23): 5681-5689.
DOI Google Scholar
[38]
Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988, 54(6): 1063-1070.
DOI Google Scholar
[39]
Spielberger CD. State-trait anxiety inventory. In The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. Weiner IB, Craighead WE, Eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
DOI
[40]
Buelow MT, Suhr JA. Personality characteristics and state mood influence individual deck selections on the Iowa Gambling Task. Pers Individ Differ 2013, 54(5): 593-597.
DOI Google Scholar
[41]
Miu AC, Heilman RM, Houser D. Anxiety impairs decision-making: psychophysiological evidence from an Iowa Gambling Task. Biol Psychol 2008, 77(3): 353-358.
DOI Google Scholar
[42]
Modir JG, Wallace MS. Human experimental pain models 3: heat/capsaicin sensitization and intradermal capsaicin models. In Analgesia. Methods in Molecular Biology (Methods and Protocols). Szallasi A, Eds. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2010, pp 169-174.
DOI
[43]
Frot M, Feine JS, Bushnell CM. Sex differences in pain perception and anxiety. A psychophysical study with topical capsaicin. Pain 2004, 108(3): 230-236.
DOI Google Scholar
[44]
Bechara A, Damasio H, Damasio AR, et al. Different contributions of the human amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-making. J Neurosci 1999, 19(13): 5473-5481.
DOI Google Scholar
[45]
Kuner R, Flor H. Structural plasticity and reorganisation in chronic pain. Nat Rev Neurosci 2017, 18(2): 113.
DOI Google Scholar
[46]
Lin CH, Chiu YC, Lee PL, et al. Is deck B a disadvantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? Behav Brain Funct 2007, 3: 16.
DOI Google Scholar
[47]
D'Ardenne K, Eshel N, Luka J, et al. Role of prefrontal cortex and the midbrain dopamine system in working memory updating. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012, 109(49): 19900-19909.
DOI Google Scholar
[48]
Seymour B, O'Doherty JP, Koltzenburg M, et al. Opponent appetitive-aversive neural processes underlie predictive learning of pain relief. Nat Neurosci 2005, 8(9): 1234-1240.
DOI Google Scholar
[49]
Wiech K, Tracey I. Pain, decisions, and actions: a motivational perspective. Front Neurosci 2013, 7: 46.
DOI Google Scholar
[50]
Shields GS, Rivers AM, Ramey MM, et al. Mild acute stress improves response speed without impairing accuracy or interference control in two selective attention tasks: implications for theories of stress and cognition. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2019, 108: 78-86.
DOI Google Scholar
[51]
Degroote C, Schwaninger A, Heimgartner N, et al. Acute stress improves concentration performance. Exp Psychol 2020, 67(2): 88-98.
DOI Google Scholar
[52]
Shields GS, Sazma MA, Yonelinas AP. The effects of acute stress on core executive functions: a meta-analysis and comparison with cortisol. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2016, 68: 651-668.
DOI Google Scholar
[53]
Brand M, Labudda K, Markowitsch HJ. Neuropsychological correlates of decision-making in ambiguous and risky situations. Neural Netw 2006, 19(8): 1266-1276.
DOI Google Scholar
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 26 December 2021
Revised: 09 February 2022
Accepted: 12 February 2022
Published: 22 May 2022
Issue date: March 2022

Copyright

© The authors 2022.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 31871127), the Features Innovative Projects of Guangdong Province Ordinary University (Grant No. 2019KTSCX149), and the Shenzhen Basic Research Project (Grant No. 20200812113251002).

Rights and permissions

This article is published with open access at journals.sagepub.com/home/BSA

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Return