Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:08:13.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reading words hurts: the impact of pain sensitivity on people’s ratings of pain-related words*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2016

KEVIN REUTER ,
MARKUS WERNING ,
LARS KUCHINKE  and
ERICA COSENTINO
KEVIN REUTER*
Affiliation:
University of Bern
MARKUS WERNING
Affiliation:
Ruhr University Bochum
LARS KUCHINKE
Affiliation:
Ruhr University Bochum
ERICA COSENTINO
Affiliation:
Ruhr University Bochum
*
†Address for correspondence: Kevin Reuter, Institute of Philosophy, Unitobler, Länggassstraße 49a, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Tel: +41 77 266 2091; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explores the relation between pain sensitivity and the cognitive processing of words. 130 participants evaluated the pain-relatedness of a total of 600 two-syllabic nouns, and subsequently reported on their own pain sensitivity. The results demonstrate that pain-sensitive people associate words more strongly with pain than less sensitive people. In particular, concrete nouns like ‘syringe’, ‘wound’, ‘knife’, and ‘cactus’ are considered to be more pain-related for those who are more pain-sensitive. These findings dovetail with recent studies suggesting that certain bodily characteristics influence the way people form mental representations (Casasanto, 2009). We discuss three mechanisms which could potentially account for our findings: attention and memory bias, prototype analysis, and embodied cognition. We argue that, whereas none of these three accounts can be ruled out, the embodied cognition hypothesis provides a particularly promising view to accommodate our data.

Keywords

painsemantic processingbody-specificitypain-sensitivityembodied account
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 553 - 567
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank Alexander Errenst, Marcel Gimmel, Nina Poth, and Fahime Same for their support in constructing the set of stimuli and preparing the data for analysis.

References

references

Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
Baum, C., Huber, C., Schneider, R., & Lautenbacher, S. (2011). Prediction of experimental pain sensitivity by attention to pain-related stimuli in healthy individuals. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 112(3), 926–946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Binder, J., Desai, R., Graves, W., & Conant, L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2767–2796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351–367.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2011). Different bodies, different minds: the body-specificity of language and thought. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 378–383.Google Scholar
Coghill, R. C., McHaffie, J. G., & Yen, Y. F. (2003). Neural correlates of interindividual differences in the subjective experience of pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(14), 8538–8542.Google Scholar
Cosentino, E., Baggio, G., Kontinen, J., Garwels, T., & Werning, M. (2014). Lexicon in action: N400 effect on affordances and telicity. In Bello, P., Guarini, M., McShane, M., & Scassellati, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2079–2084). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Dillmann, J., Miltner, H., & Weiss, T. (2000). The influence of semantic priming on event-related potentials to painful laser-heat stimuli in humans. Neuroscience Letters, 284, 53–56.Google Scholar
Eck, J., Richter, M., Straube, T., Miltner, W., & Weiss, T. (2011). Affective brain regions are activated during the processing of pain-related words in migraine patients. Pain, 152(5), 1104–1113.Google Scholar
Edwards, R., & Fillingim, R. (2007). Self-reported pain sensitivity: lack of correlation with pain threshold and tolerance. European Journal of Pain, 11(5), 594–598.Google Scholar
Knost, B., Flor, H., Braun, C., & Birbaumer, N. (1997). Cerebral processing of words and the development of chronic pain. Psychophysiology, 34, 474–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koutantji, M., Pearce, S., & Oakley, D. (2000). Cognitive processing of pain-related words and psychological adjustment in high and low pain frequency participants. British Journal of Health Psychology, 5, 275–288.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Niedenthal, P., Halberstadt, J., & Setterlund, M. (1997). Being happy and seeing ‘happy’: emotional state mediates visual word recognition. Cognition & Emotion, 11(4), 403–432.Google Scholar
Nielsen, C., Staud, R., & Price, D. (2009). Individual differences in pain sensitivity: measurement, causation, and consequences. Journal of Pain, 10(3), 231–237.Google Scholar
Pearce, J., & Morley, S. (1989). An experimental investigation of the construct validity of the McGill pain questionnaire. Pain, 39, 115–121.Google Scholar
Prinz, J. (2005). Passionate thoughts: the emotional embodiment of moral concepts. In Zwaan, R. & Pecher, D. (Eds.), The grounding of cognition: the role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 93–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. (2001). Brain reflections of words and their meaning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5(12), 517–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulvermüller, F., & Fadiga, L. (2010). Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(5), 351–360.Google Scholar
Rak, N., Kontinen, J., Kuchinke, L., & Werning, M. (2013). Does the semantic integration of emotion words depend on emotional empathy? In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1187–1192). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Richter, M., Eck, J., Straube, T., Miltner, W. H., & Weiss, T. (2010). Do words hurt? Brain activation during the processing of pain-related words. Pain, 148(2), 198–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosch, E. (1999). Principles of categorization. In Margolis, E. & Laurence, S. (Eds.), Concepts: core readings (pp. 189–206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ruscheweyh, R., Marziniak, M., Stumpenhorst, F., Reinholz, J., & Knecht, S. (2009). Pain sensitivity can be assessed by self-rating: development and validation of the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire. Pain, 146(1), 65–74.Google Scholar
Rusu, A., Pincus, T., & Morley, S. (2012). Depressed pain patients differ from other depressed groups: examination of cognitive content in a sentence completion task. Pain, 153(9), 1898–1904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, C., Montant, M., Ponz, A., & Ziegler, J. C. (2012). Emotions in reading: disgust, empathy and the contextual learning hypothesis. Cognition, 125(2), 333–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S., Della Rosa, P., Vinson, D., Tettamanti, M., Devlin, J., & Cappa, S. (2014). The neural representation of abstract words: the role of emotion. Cerebral Cortex, 24(7), 1767–1777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Võ, M., Conrad, M., Kuchinke, L., Hartfeld, K., Hofmann, M., & Jacobs, A. (2009). The Berlin Affective Word List Reloaded (BAWL-R). Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 534–538.Google Scholar
Werning, M. (2012). Non-symbolic compositional representation and its neuronal foundation: towards an emulative semantics. In Werning, M., Hinzen, W., & Machery, M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality (pp. 633–654). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Werning, M., Tacca, M., & Mroczko-Wasowicz, A. (2013). High- vs low-level cognition and the neuro-emulative theory of mental representation. In Gähde, U., Hartmann, S., & Wolf, J. (Eds.), Models, simulations, and the reduction of complexity (pp. 141–152). Berlin : De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Willems, R. M., Hagoort, P., & Casasanto, D. (2010). Body-specific representations of action verbs: neural evidence from right- and left-handers. Psychological Science, 21(1), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willems, R., Labruna, L., D’Esposito, M., Ivry, R., & Casasanto, D. (2011). A functional role for the motor system in language understanding: evidence from theta-burst TMS. Psychological Science, 22(7), 849–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, R. M., Toni, I., Hagoort, P., & Casasanto, D. (2009). Body-specific motor imagery of hand actions: neural evidence from right- and left-handers. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3(39), 1–9.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Reuter supplementary material

Reuter supplementary material

Download Reuter supplementary material(File)
File 11 KB