Douleur et Analgésie

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 48–56 | Cite as

Biais attentionnel chez le patient douloureux chronique. Nature, évaluation et intérêts clinique et thérapeutique

Mise au Point / Update

Résumé

L’hypervigilance, la focalisation, l’évitement font partie du vocabulaire utilisé par le clinicien qui s’occupe de la douleur chronique. Ces notions renvoient à des processus bien connus en psychologie cognitive et correspondent au fonctionnement et au dysfonctionnement de l’attention sélective. L’objectif de cet article est de s’intéresser à ces processus attentionnels impliqués dans la douleur chronique en s’attachant à préciser leur nature (de quelle composante attentionnelle s’agit-il ?), les différents paradigmes expérimentaux permettant de les évaluer (méthode, résultat et interprétation) et enfin en discutant de leurs principales implications (cliniques et thérapeutiques).

Mots clés

Bais attentionnel Douleur chronique Tâches expérimentales Thérapie 

Attentional bias in chronic pain. Nature, evaluation and clinical and therapeutic interest

Abstract

The hypervigilance, the focus, the avoidance are a part of the vocabulary used by the clinician who takes care of the chronic pain. These notions are well known in cognitive psychology and correspond to the functioning and to the dysfunction to the selective attention. The objective of this article is to be interested in these attentional processes implied in the chronic pain by attempting to specify their nature (what attentional component?), the experimental paradigms allowing to estimate them (method, result and interpretation) and finally, by discussing their main implications (clinical and therapeutic).

Keywords

Attentional bias Chronic pain Experimental task Therapy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pincus T, Morley S (2001) Cognitive processing bias in chronic pain: a review and integration. Psychol Bull 127:599–617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crombez G, Ryckeghem DMLV, Eccleston C, et al (2013) Attentional bias to pain-related information: a meta-analysis. Pain 154:497–510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schoth DE, Nunes VD, Liossi C (2012) Attentional bias towards pain-related information in chronic pain; a meta-analysis of visual-probe investigations. Clin Psychol Rev 32:13–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharpe L, Haggman S, Nicholas M, et al (2014) Avoidance of affective pain stimuli predicts chronicity in patients with acute back pain. Pain 155:45–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lautenbacher S, Huber C, Schoefer D, et al (2010) Attentional and emotional mechanisms related to pain as predictors of chronic postoperative pain. Pain 151:722–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Ryckeghem DML, Crombez G, Goubert L, et al (2012) Attentional bias towards pain-related information diminishes the efficacy of distraction. Pain 153:2345–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Zomeren AH, Brouwer WH (1994) Clinical neuropsychology of attention. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Posner MI, Cohen Y (1984) Components of visual orienting. In: H. Bouma et D. Bouhuis (eds), Attention and performance. X:531–56, London, ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macworth JF (1970) Vigilance et Attention, Baltimore, Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Camus JF (1996) La psychologie cognitive de l’attention. Armand Colin, 217 pp.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dear BF, Sharpe L, Nicholas M, et al (2011) The psychometric properties of the dot-probe paradigm when used in pain-related attentional bias research. J Pain 12:1247–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dehghani M, Sharpe L, Nicholas MK (2003) Selective attention to pain-related information in chronic musculoskeletal pain patients. Pain 105:37–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haggman S, Sharpe L, Nicholas MK, et al (2010) Attentional biases toward sensory pain words in acute and chronic pain patients. J Pain 11:1129–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohammadi S, Dehghani M, Sharpe L, et al (2012) Do main caregivers selectively attend to pain-related stimuli in the same way that patients do? Pain 153:62–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roelofs J, Peters ML, Fassaert T, et al (2005) The role of fear of movement and injury in selective attentional processing in chronic low back pain patients: A dot-probe evaluation. J Pain 6:294–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Ryckeghem DML, Crombez G, Goubert L, et al (2013) The predictive value of attentional bias towards pain related information in chronic pain patients: A diary study. Pain 154:468–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang Z, Jackson T, Chen H (2013) Effects of chronic pain and pain-related fear on orienting and maintenance of attention: an eye movement study. J Pain 14:1148–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stroop JR (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Experiment Psychol 18:643–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pearce J, Morley S (1989) An experimental investigation of the construct validity of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain 39:115–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koster EH, Crombez G, Verschuere B, De Houwer J (2004) Selective attention to threat in the dot probe paradigm: differentiating vigilance and difficulty to disengage. Behav Res Ther 42:1183–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koster EHW, Crombez G, Verschuere B, et al (2006) Components of attentional bias to threat in high trait anxiety: facilited engagement, impaired disengagement, and attentional avoidance. Behav Res Ther 44:1757–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Posner MI, Snyder CR, Davidson BJ (1980) Attention and the detection of signals. J Exp Psychol 109:160–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Posner MI, Petersen SE (1990) The attention system of the human brain. Annu Rev Neurosci 13:25–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Navon D, Margalit B (1983) Allocation of attention according to informativeness in visual recognition. Q J Exp Psychol A 35:497–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Linton SJ (2013) A transdiagnostic approach to pain and emotion. J Appl Biobehav Res. 18:82–103CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mogg K, Bradley BP (2004) A Cognitive–Motivational Perspective on the Processing of Threat Information and Anxiety. In: Yiend J (Ed.) Cognition, Emotion and Psychopathology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge pp 68–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mac Leod C, Mathews A (1988) Anxiety and the allocation of attentional to threat. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 40:653–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beck AT, Clark DA (1997) An information processing model of anxiety: automatic and strategic processes. Behav Res Ther 35:49–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moriarty O, McGuire BE, Finn DP (2011) The effect of pain on cognitive function: a review of clinical and preclinical research. Prog Neurobiol 93:385–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boston A, Sharpe L (2005) The role of threat-expectancy in acute pain: Effects on attentional bias, coping strategy effectiveness and response to pain. Pain 119:168–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vlaeyen JW, Linton SJ (2000) Fear avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: A state of the art. Pain 85:317–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu X, Qian M, Zhou X, et al (2006) Repeating the stimulus exposure to investigate what happens after initial selective attention to threatening pictures. Personality and Individual Differences 40:1007–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Amir N, Weber G, Beard C, et al (2008) The effects of a single session attention modification program on response to a publicspeaking challenge in socially anxious individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 117:860–8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hereen A, Grazia C, Philippot P (2012) Biais attentionnels et troubles émotionnels: de l’évaluation au changement clinique. Revue Francophone de Clinique Comportementale et Cognitive 3:23–41Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Van Damme S, Crombez G, Hermans D, et al (2006) The role of extinction and reinstatement in attentional bias to threat: a conditioning approach. Behav Res Ther 44:1555–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Quistrebert-Davanne
    • 1
  • J. -J. Labat
    • 2
  • J. Nizard
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre fédératif douleur soins de support éthique cliniqueCHU de Nantes. Laboratoire de psychologie des Pays de la Loire (UPRES EA 4638)Nantes Cedex 1France
  2. 2.Centre fédératif de pelvi-périnéologie et clinique urologiqueCHU de NantesNantes Cedex 1France
  3. 3.Centre fédératif douleur, soins palliatifs et de support éthique cliniqueCHU de Nantes. Laboratoire thérapeutique (EA3826)Nantes Cedex 1France

Personalised recommendations