Julia Vogt

Keeping pain in mind: A motivational account of attention to pain

Attention is a key concept in many theories of pain perception. A clinically popular idea is that pain is more intense in persons who are hypervigilant for or bias their attention to pain information. So far, evidence for such bias in pain patients as compared to healthy persons is inconclusive. Furthermore, studies investigating the effects of distracting attention away from pain have shown contradictory results. In this review, we present a motivational perspective on attentional processing of pain that accounts for these inconclusive research findings. We argue that pain always has to be considered within a context of goal pursuit. From this perspective, two largely unexplored theoretical assumptions are introduced. First, when pain occurs during the pursuit of a certain goal, it may unintentionally capture attention although it is not relevant for the goal. Whether such unintentional attentional capture happens is not only dependent upon the characteristics of the pain but also on the characteristics of the focal goal. Second, attention to pain and pain-related information might be driven by a focal goal related to pain. Attentional processing of pain information will be particularly enhanced when the focal goal is related to pain management (e.g., attempting to gain control). Future research should systematically investigate the role of motivation and goal pursuit in the attentional processing of pain-related information. This motivational perspective offers a powerful framework to explain inter- and intra-individual differences in the deployment of attention to pain-related information.

Allocation of Spatial Attention to Emotional Stimuli Depends Upon Arousal and Not Valence

Attentional allocation to emotional stimuli is often proposed to be driven by valence and in particular by negativity. However, many negative stimuli are also arousing leaving the question whether valence or arousal accounts for this effect. The authors examined whether the valence or the arousal level of emotional stimuli influences the allocation of spatial attention using a modified spatial cueing task. Participants responded to targets that were preceded by cues consisting of emotional pictures varying on arousal and valence. Response latencies showed that disengagement of spatial attention was slower for stimuli high in arousal than for stimuli low in arousal. The effect was independent of the valence of the pictures and not gender-specific. The findings support the idea that arousal affects the allocation of attention.

Mosaic type-1 NF1 microdeletions as a cause of both generalized and segmental neurofibromatosis type-1 (NF1)

Mosaicism is an important feature of type‐1 neurofibromatosis (NF1) on account of its impact upon both clinical manifestations and transmission risk. Using FISH and MLPA to screen 3500 NF1 patients, we identified 146 individuals harboring gross NF1 deletions, 14 of whom (9.6%) displayed somatic mosaicism. The high rate of mosaicism in patients with NF1 deletions supports the postulated idea of a direct relationship between the high new mutation rate in this cancer predisposition syndrome and the frequency of mosaicism. Seven of the 14 mosaic NF1 deletions were type‐2, whereas four were putatively type‐1, and three were atypical. Two of the four probable type‐1 deletions were confirmed as such by breakpoint‐spanning PCR or SNP analysis. Both deletions were associated with a generalized manifestation of NF1. Independently, we identified a third patient with a mosaic type‐1 NF1 deletion who exhibited segmental NF1. Together, these three cases constitute the first proven mosaic type‐1 deletions so far reported. In two of these three mosaic type‐1 deletions, the breakpoints were located within PRS1 and PRS2, previously identified as hotspots for nonallelic homologous recombination (NAHR) during meiosis. Hence, NAHR within PRS1 and PRS2 is not confined to meiosis but may also occur during postzygotic mitotic cell cycles. Hum Mutat 32:213–219, 2011.

The automatic orienting of attention to goal-relevant stimuli

It is often assumed that attention is automatically allocated to stimuli relevant to ones actual goals. However, the existing evidence for this idea is limited in several ways. We investigated whether words relevant to a persons current goal influence the orienting of attention even when an intention to attend to the goal-relevant stimuli is not present. In two experiments, participants performed a modified spatial cueing paradigm combined with a second task that induced a goal. The results of the experiments showed that the induced goal led to the orientation of attention to goal-relevant words in the spatial cueing task. This effect was not found for words semantically related to the goal-relevant words. The results provide evidence for motivational accounts of attention, which state that the automatic allocation of attention is guided by the current goals of a person.

On the role of goal relevance in emotional attention: Disgust evokes early attention to cleanliness

Prior evidence has shown that aversive emotional states are characterised by an attentional bias towards aversive events. The present study investigated whether aversive emotions also bias attention towards stimuli that represent means by which the emotion can be alleviated. We induced disgust by having participants touch fake disgusting objects. Participants in the control condition touched non-disgusting objects. The results of a subsequent dot-probe task revealed that attention was oriented to disgusting pictures irrespective of condition. However, participants in the disgust condition also oriented towards pictures representing cleanliness. These findings suggest that the deployment of attention in aversive emotional states is not purely stimulus driven but is also guided by the goal to alleviate this emotional state.

Nonpain goal pursuit inhibits attentional bias to pain

Summary Attentional bias to signals of impending pain is inhibited when one is simultaneously engaged in the pursuit of a salient but nonpain task goal. ABSTRACT Although dealing with pain is a vital goal to pursue, most individuals are also engaged in the pursuit of other goals. The aim of the present experiment was to investigate whether attentional bias to pain signals is inhibited when one is pursuing a concurrent salient but nonpain task goal. Attentional bias to pain signals was measured in pain‐free volunteers (n = 63) using a spatial cueing task with pain cues and neutral cues. The pursuit of a concurrent goal was manipulated by including additional trials in which a digit appeared at the middle of the screen. Half of the participants (goal group) were instructed to name these additional stimuli aloud. In order to increase the affective‐motivational value of this non‐pain‐related goal, monetary reward and punishment were made contingent upon the performance of this task. Participants of the control group did not perform the additional task. As predicted, the results show attentional bias to pain signals in the control group, but not in the goal group. This indicates that attentional bias to signals of impending pain is inhibited when one is engaged in the pursuit of another salient but nonpain goal. The results of this study underscore a motivational view on attention to pain, in which the pursuit of multiple goals, including nonpain goals, is taken into account.

Monozygotic twins discordant for neurofibromatosis type 1 due to a postzygotic NF1 gene mutation

The analysis of monozygotic twins (MZ) concordant for neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) has indicated that genetic factors exert a major influence on the clinical variability (e.g. the number of café‐au‐lait spots and/or neurofibromas) evident in this disease. Here, we report on a pair of monozygotic, dichorionic twins who are phenotypically discordant with respect to NF1. Whereas DNA sequence analysis indicated somatic mosaicism for the NF1 nonsense mutation, c.4108C>T (p.Q1370X), in the affected twin II/1, this lesion was apparently absent in his unaffected brother. The observation of heterozygosity for flanking SNP and microsatellite markers rendered it most unlikely that the observed mosaicism with normal cells was due to mutation reversion brought about either by gene conversion or mitotic recombination. Instead, we conclude that the twinning event, which would have taken place within three days post‐fertilization, must have preceded the c.4108C>T mutation which is therefore predicted to have occurred during the blastocyst stage, leading to somatic mosaicism with normal cells lacking the mutation. This is the first reported case of monozygotic twins discordant for NF1 in whom mosaicism for a postzygotic NF1 gene mutation has been observed in the affected but not the unaffected twin.

Competing for Attentional Priority: Temporary Goals Versus Threats

Numerous studies have shown that attention is biased toward threatening events. More recent evidence has also found attentional biases for stimuli that are relevant to the current and temporary goals of an individual. We examined whether goal-relevant information still evokes an attentional bias when this information competes with threatening events. In three experiments, participants performed a dot probe task combined with a separate task that induced a temporary goal. The results of Experiment 1 showed that attention was oriented to goal-relevant pictures in the dot probe task when these pictures were simultaneously presented with neutral or threatening pictures. Whether goal-relevant pictures themselves were threatening or neutral did not influence the results. Experiment 2 replicated these findings in a sample of highly trait-anxious participants. Experiment 3 showed that attention was automatically deployed to stimuli relevant to a temporary goal even in the presence of stimuli that signal imminent and genuine threat (i.e., a colored patch signaling the presentation of an aversive noise). These findings further corroborate the conclusion that an individuals current and temporary goals guide early attentional processes.

Multiple goal management starts with attention: goal prioritizing affects the allocation of spatial attention to goal-relevant events

Prior studies have shown that attention is allocated to events relevant to the current goal of a person. Until now, research has focused on the implementation of a single goal leaving open the question of how attention is allocated when multiple goals are activated. We examined whether the allocation of spatial attention is affected by the prioritizing of one goal over another. The results of two dot probe studies showed that attention is oriented to stimuli relevant to a goal with high value when simultaneously presented with stimuli relevant to a goal with low value (Experiment 1) and to stimuli relevant to a goal with high expectancy of success that were simultaneously presented with stimuli relevant to a goal with low expectancy of success (Experiment 2). These findings demonstrate that the allocation of spatial attention is dependent on the motivational strength of goal pursuit.

Intrachromosomal mitotic nonallelic homologous recombination is the major molecular mechanism underlying type-2 NF1 deletions.

Nonallelic homologous recombination (NAHR) is responsible for the recurrent rearrangements that give rise to genomic disorders. Although meiotic NAHR has been investigated in multiple contexts, much less is known about mitotic NAHR despite its importance for tumorigenesis. Because type‐2 NF1 microdeletions frequently result from mitotic NAHR, they represent a good model in which to investigate the features of mitotic NAHR. We have used microsatellite analysis and SNP arrays to distinguish between the various alternative recombinational possibilities, thereby ascertaining that 17 of 18 type‐2 NF1 deletions, with breakpoints in the SUZ12 gene and its highly homologous pseudogene, originated via intrachromosomal recombination. This high proportion of intrachromosomal NAHR causing somatic type‐2 NF1 deletions contrasts with the interchromosomal origin of germline type‐1 NF1 microdeletions, whose breakpoints are located within the NF1‐REPs (low‐copy repeats located adjacent to the SUZ12 sequences). Further, meiotic NAHR causing type‐1 NF1 deletions occurs within recombination hotspots characterized by high GC‐content and DNA duplex stability, whereas the type‐2 breakpoints associated with the mitotic NAHR events investigated here do not cluster within hotspots and are located within regions of significantly lower GC‐content and DNA stability. Our findings therefore point to fundamental mechanistic differences between the determinants of mitotic and meiotic NAHR. Hum Mutat 31:1163–1173, 2010.