Skip to main content
×
Home

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

  • KEVIN REUTER (a1), MARKUS WERNING (a2), LARS KUCHINKE (a2) and ERICA COSENTINO (a2)
abstract
<span class='sc'>abstract</span>

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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Kevin Reuter, Institute of Philosophy, Unitobler, Länggassstraße 49a, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Tel: +41 77 266 2091; e-mail: kevin.reuter@philo.unibe.ch
Footnotes
Hide All
*

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.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Barsalou L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577660.
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), 926946.
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, 27672796.
Casasanto D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351367.
Casasanto D. (2011). Different bodies, different minds: the body-specificity of language and thought. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 378383.
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), 85388542.
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. 20792084). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
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, 5356.
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), 11041113.
Edwards R., & Fillingim R. (2007). Self-reported pain sensitivity: lack of correlation with pain threshold and tolerance. European Journal of Pain, 11(5), 594598.
Knost B., Flor H., Braun C., & Birbaumer N. (1997). Cerebral processing of words and the development of chronic pain. Psychophysiology, 34, 474481.
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, 275288.
Lakoff G., & Johnson M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Niedenthal P., Halberstadt J., & Setterlund M. (1997). Being happy and seeing ‘happy’: emotional state mediates visual word recognition. Cognition & Emotion, 11(4), 403432.
Nielsen C., Staud R., & Price D. (2009). Individual differences in pain sensitivity: measurement, causation, and consequences. Journal of Pain, 10(3), 231237.
Pearce J., & Morley S. (1989). An experimental investigation of the construct validity of the McGill pain questionnaire. Pain, 39, 115121.
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. 93114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pulvermüller F. (2001). Brain reflections of words and their meaning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5(12), 517524.
Pulvermüller F., & Fadiga L. (2010). Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(5), 351360.
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. 11871192). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
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), 198205.
Rosch E. (1999). Principles of categorization. In Margolis E. & Laurence S. (Eds.), Concepts: core readings (pp. 189206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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), 6574.
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), 18981904.
Silva C., Montant M., Ponz A., & Ziegler J. C. (2012). Emotions in reading: disgust, empathy and the contextual learning hypothesis. Cognition, 125(2), 333338.
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), 17671777.
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), 534538.
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. 633654). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. 141152). Berlin : De Gruyter.
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), 6774.
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), 849854.
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), 19.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Materials

Reuter supplementary material
Reuter supplementary material

 Unknown (11 KB)
11 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 11
Total number of PDF views: 74 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 432 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 3rd November 2016 - 13th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.