Processing of Painful Pictures in Individuals With High and Low Rejection Sensitivity: Evidence From Event-Related Potentials.

Wu Qinqin, Ran Guangming, Zhang Qi, Xiaojun Cao
Author Information
  1. Ran Guangming: Department of Psychology, Institute of Education, China West Normal University, Nanchong, China. ORCID
  2. Zhang Qi: College of Preschool and Primary Education, China West Normal University, Nanchong, China.
  3. Xiaojun Cao: Department of Psychology, Institute of Education, China West Normal University, Nanchong, China.

Abstract

An increasing number of studies have investigated the relation between the processing of Painful stimuli and Rejection. Little was known, however, about the impact of the Rejection sensitivity (RS) on the processing of Painful pictures. This study addressed this issue using high temporal resolution event-related potential techniques. Thirty high RS (20 women and 10 men who scored in the top 20th percentile of the Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire scores) and 30 low RS (20 women and 10 men who scored in the bottom 20th percentile) volunteers participated in the experiment. All volunteers performed a discrimination task of Painful pictures in which they were asked to judge whether target pictures were Painful or not. Behaviorally, participants exhibited shorter reaction times for Painful than nonpainful pictures. For the P100 component, low RS participants showed stronger brain activities for Painful than nonpainful pictures, suggesting vigilance toward Painful pictures. High RS participants, however, exhibited no P100 amplitude differences between Painful and nonpainful pictures, indicating an analgesia phenomenon. Furthermore, we found that there were larger amplitudes in the late late positive complex component for Painful compared with nonpainful pictures, regardless of participants' RS. This suggested a person's further assessment for Painful pictures. In short, our findings demonstrated that the level of RS influenced the pain processing at a very early stage of processing.

Keywords

References

  1. Am J Psychiatry. 1979 Sep;136(9):1148-51 [PMID: 474801]
  2. Neuroimage. 2013 May 15;72:164-73 [PMID: 23376492]
  3. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Sep 04;8:691 [PMID: 25237303]
  4. Neurosci Lett. 2010 Jan 29;469(3):328-32 [PMID: 20026179]
  5. Exp Brain Res. 2012 Aug;220(3-4):277-86 [PMID: 22695721]
  6. PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24932 [PMID: 21949794]
  7. Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 11;6:20851 [PMID: 26865250]
  8. Front Psychol. 2015 Oct 02;6:1516 [PMID: 26483750]
  9. Neuropsychologia. 2018 Jun;114:143-157 [PMID: 29702161]
  10. PLoS One. 2014 Nov 25;9(11):e114011 [PMID: 25422892]
  11. Neuropsychologia. 2008 Jan 15;46(1):160-73 [PMID: 17825852]
  12. Soc Neurosci. 2016;11(3):317-29 [PMID: 26192557]
  13. Soc Neurosci. 2016;11(3):289-96 [PMID: 26226618]
  14. Front Psychol. 2012 Nov 26;3:501 [PMID: 23189065]
  15. Brain Res. 2011 Jun 29;1398:72-85 [PMID: 21624566]
  16. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012 Feb;38(2):185-96 [PMID: 21885860]
  17. Psychophysiology. 2004 May;41(3):441-9 [PMID: 15102130]
  18. Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 12;7(1):13054 [PMID: 29026123]
  19. Brain Res. 2008 Feb 27;1196:85-93 [PMID: 18221733]
  20. Front Psychol. 2018 Sep 28;9:1737 [PMID: 30323779]
  21. Psychophysiology. 2010 Mar 1;47(2):247-59 [PMID: 19863758]
  22. Front Psychol. 2017 Jul 25;8:1269 [PMID: 28790960]
  23. Psychophysiology. 2002 Sep;39(5):641-9 [PMID: 12236331]
  24. J Pers. 2010 Feb;78(1):119-48 [PMID: 20433615]
  25. J Pain Res. 2015 Aug 11;8:507-21 [PMID: 26316802]
  26. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Jun;19(6):945-56 [PMID: 17536965]
  27. Behav Neurosci. 2004 Oct;118(5):925-35 [PMID: 15506875]
  28. Pers Individ Dif. 2015 Oct 1;85:7-12 [PMID: 26213434]
  29. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996 Jun;70(6):1327-43 [PMID: 8667172]
  30. Front Psychol. 2014 Dec 04;5:1368 [PMID: 25538644]
  31. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 Jul;91(1):1-15 [PMID: 16834476]
  32. PLoS One. 2014 Apr 04;9(4):e93728 [PMID: 24705497]
  33. Conscious Cogn. 2015 Jul;34:63-72 [PMID: 25841210]
  34. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 30;10(7):e0124527 [PMID: 26225827]
  35. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2018 Jun;59:31-39 [PMID: 29136514]
  36. Iperception. 2019 Sep 27;10(5):2041669519879722 [PMID: 31632629]
  37. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2017 Aug;17(4):850-857 [PMID: 28550624]
  38. J Pain Res. 2013 Jun 10;6:437-47 [PMID: 23788838]
  39. Exp Brain Res. 2014 Sep;232(9):2731-9 [PMID: 24770858]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0painfulpicturesRSprocessingnonpainfulrejectionparticipantsP100latehoweversensitivityhigh20women10menscored20thpercentileRejectionlowvolunteersexhibitedcomponentvigilanceHighincreasingnumberstudiesinvestigatedrelationstimuliLittleknownimpactstudyaddressedissueusingtemporalresolutionevent-relatedpotentialtechniquesThirtytopSensitivityQuestionnairescores30bottomparticipatedexperimentperformeddiscriminationtaskaskedjudgewhethertargetBehaviorallyshorterreactiontimesshowedstrongerbrainactivitiessuggestingtowardamplitudedifferencesindicatinganalgesiaphenomenonFurthermorefoundlargeramplitudespositivecomplexcomparedregardlessparticipants'suggestedperson'sassessmentshortfindingsdemonstratedlevelinfluencedpainearlystageProcessingPainfulPicturesIndividualsLowSensitivity:EvidenceEvent-RelatedPotentialsLPC

Similar Articles

Cited By