Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home

When words burn – language processing differentially modulates pain perception in typical and chronic pain populations

  • NIKOLA VUKOVIC (a1), FRANCESCA FARDO (a2) and YURY SHTYROV (a3)
Abstract

How do we communicate our pain to others? The challenge of conveying such a highly individual experience in words is faced daily by many sufferers of chronic pain and their doctors. Moreover, such linguistic strategies are especially relevant in situations where no obvious reference to physical injuries or tissue damage can be made. Neurolinguistically, this question is directly linked to understanding the brain mechanisms behind the encoding, storage, and comprehension of word meanings. An influential view posits that comprehension involves mentally simulating sensorimotor experiences which words refer to. Here, we test the hypothesis that both pain word comprehension and first-hand experiences of pain rely on a common neural substrate, leading to a prediction that word processing should modulate the perception of noxious stimuli. We used a priming task and asked neurotypical and chronic pain participants to read sentences containing literal or metaphoric pain descriptors, and then rate the intensity of thermal pain stimuli. We found that pain language comprehension modulated participants’ ratings of pain intensity. Furthermore, this effect depended on linguistic context as well as individual pain history. We discuss our findings within the larger theoretical debate on the nature of semantic representations, and point to their potential relevance for clinical practice.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      When words burn – language processing differentially modulates pain perception in typical and chronic pain populations
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      When words burn – language processing differentially modulates pain perception in typical and chronic pain populations
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      When words burn – language processing differentially modulates pain perception in typical and chronic pain populations
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
Hide All
Anderson, M. L. (2010). Neural reuse: a fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(4), 245266.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577609.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617645.
Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In de Vega, M., Glenberg, A. M., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 245284). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Beilock, S. L., Lyons, I. M., Mattarella-Micke, A., Nusbaum, H. C., & Small, S. L. (2008). Sports experience changes the neural processing of action language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(36), 1326913273.
Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 527536.
Borghi, A. M., Flumini, A., Cimatti, F., Marocco, D., & Scorolli, C. (2011). Manipulating objects and telling words: a study on concrete and abstract words acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 114. Online <https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00015>.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193216.
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2014). Principles of representation: why you can’t represent the same concept twice. Topics in Cognitive Science, 117. Online <https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12097>.
Cosentino, E., Baggio, G., Kontinen, J., & Werning, M. (2017). The time-course of sentence meaning composition: N400 effects of the interaction between context-induced and lexically stored affordances. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 117. Online <https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00813>.
Egorova, N., Park, J., & Kong, J. (2017). In the face of pain: the choice of visual cues in pain conditioning matters. European Journal of Pain (United Kingdom), 21(7), 12431251.
Fardo, F., Allen, M., Jegindø, E. M. E., Angrilli, A., & Roepstorff, A. (2015). Neurocognitive evidence for mental imagery-driven hypoalgesic and hyperalgesic pain regulation. NeuroImage, 120, 350361.
Fardo, F., Auksztulewicz, R., Allen, M., Dietz, M. J., Roepstorff, A., & Friston, K. J. (2017). Expectation violation and attention to pain jointly modulate neural gain in somatosensory cortex. NeuroImage, 153, 109121.
Gold, B. T., Balota, D. A., Jones, S. J., Powell, D. K., Smith, C. D., & Andersen, A. H. (2006). Dissociation of automatic and strategic lexical-semantics: functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence for differing roles of multiple frontotemporal regions. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(24), 65236532.
Graves, W. W., Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Conant, L. L., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2010). Neural correlates of implicit and explicit combinatorial semantic processing. NeuroImage, 53(2), 638646.
Halpern, A. R., Zatorre, R. J., Bouffard, M., & Johnson, J. A. (2004). Behavioral and neural correlates of perceived and imagined musical timbre. Neuropsychologia, 42, 12811292.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301307.
Horchak, O. V., Giger, J.-C., Cabral, M., & Pochwatko, G. (2014). From demonstration to theory in embodied language comprehension: a review. Cognitive Systems Research, 29/30, 6685.
Horton, W. S., & Rapp, D. N. (2003). Out of sight, out of mind: occlusion and the accessibility of information in narrative comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 104110.
JASP Team (2018). JASP (Version 0.8.6) [Computer software].
Jepma, M., & Wager, T. D. (2015). Conceptual conditioning: mechanisms mediating conditioning effects on pain. Psychological Science, 26(11), 17281739.
Just, M. A., Wang, J., & Cherkassky, V. L. (2017). Neural representations of the concepts in simple sentences: concept activation prediction and context effects. NeuroImage, 157, 511520.
Katz, W. A. (1998). The needs of a patient in pain. American Journal of Medicine, 105(1 B), 2S7S.
Keltner, J. R. (2006). Isolating the modulatory effect of expectation on pain transmission: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(16), 44374443.
Kiefer, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2013). Grounding the human conceptual system in perception, action, and internal states. In Prinz, W., Beisert, M., & Herwig, A. (Eds.), Action science: foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 381407). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2005). Processing homonymy and polysemy: effects of sentential context and time-course following unilateral brain damage. Brain and Language, 95(3), 365382.
Knoeferle, P., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2011). Comprehending how visual context influences incremental sentence processing: insights from ERPs and picture–sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 48(4), 495506.
Lascaratou, C. (2007). The language of pain: expression or description? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lehrer, A. (1990). Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics. Online <https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.2.207>.
Maguire, E. A., Frith, C. D., & Morris, R. G. M. (1999). The functional neuroanatomy of comprehension and memory: the importance of prior knowledge. Brain, 122(10), 18391850.
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 171.
Meltzoff, A. N. (1990). Towards a developmental cognitive science: the implications of cross-modal matching and imitation for the development of representation and memory in infancy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 608(1), 137.
Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: a review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48(7), 788804.
Neely, J. H., Keefe, D. E., & Ross, K. L. (1989). Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 10031019.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97113.
PCC (Patient and Client Council) (2014). The painful truth. Online: <http://www.patientclientcouncil.hscni.net/publications/index/reports/date/2014>.
Pearce, J., & Morley, S. (1989). An experimental investigation of the construct validity of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain, 39, 115121.
Pecher, D., Boot, I., & Van Dantzig, S. (2011). Abstract concepts: sensory-motor grounding, metaphors, and beyond. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 54, 144.
Peterlin, B. L., Gupta, S., Ward, T. N., & MacGregor, A. (2011). Sex matters: evaluating sex and gender in migraine and headache research. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 51(6), 839842.
Pexman, P. M. (2017). The role of embodiment in conceptual development. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. Online <https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1303522>.
Pulvermüller, F. (2013). How neurons make meaning: brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(9), 458470.
Pulvermüller, F. (2018). Neural reuse of action perception circuits for language, concepts and communication. Progress in Neurobiology, 160, 144.
Reuter, K., Werning, M., Kuchinke, L., & Cosentino, E. (2017). Reading words hurts: the impact of pain sensitivity on people’s ratings of pain-related words. Language and Cognition, 9(3), 533567.
Richter, M., Eck, J., Straube, T., Miltner, W. H. R., & Weiss, T. (2010). Do words hurt? Brain activation during the processing of pain-related words. Pain, 148(2), 198205.
Salles, J. F. de, Holderbaum, C. S., Parente, M. A. M. P., Mansur, L. L., & Ansaldo, A. I. (2012). Lexical-semantic processing in the semantic priming paradigm in aphasic patients. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 70(9), 718726.
Schott, D. G. (2004). Communicating the experience of pain: the role of analogy. Pain, 108(3), 209212.
Semino, E. (2010). Descriptions of pain, metaphor, and embodied simulation. Metaphor and Symbol, 25(4), 205226.
Shtyrov, Y., Butorina, A., Nikolaeva, A., & Stroganova, T. (2014). Automatic ultrarapid activation and inhibition of cortical motor systems in spoken word comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(18) E1918E1923. Online <https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323158111>.
Speed, L. J., & Majid, A. (2018). An exception to mental simulation: no evidence for embodied odor language. Cognitive Science, 42(4), 11461178.
Tschentscher, N., Hauk, O., Fischer, M. H., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). You can count on the motor cortex: finger counting habits modulate motor cortex activation evoked by numbers. NeuroImage, 59(4), 31393148.
Van Hecke, O., Torrance, N., & Smith, B. H. (2013). Chronic pain epidemiology and its clinical relevance. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 111(1), 1318.
Van Wijk, A. J., & Hoogstraten, J. (2004). Paired comparisons of sensory pain adjectives. European Journal of Pain, 8(4), 293297.
Vukovic, N., Feurra, M., Shpektor, A., Myachykov, A., & Shtyrov, Y. (2016). Primary motor cortex functionally contributes to language comprehension: an online rTMS study. Neuropsychologia, 96, 222229.
Vukovic, N., & Shtyrov, Y. (2014). Cortical motor systems are involved in second-language comprehension: evidence from rapid mu-rhythm desynchronisation. NeuroImage, 102, 695703.
Vukovic, N., & Williams, J. N. (2014). Automatic perceptual simulation of first language meanings during second language sentence processing in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 145, 98103.
Vukovic, N., & Williams, J. N. (2015). Individual differences in spatial cognition influence mental simulation of language. Cognition, 142, 110122.
Wassenburg, S. I., & Zwaan, R. A. (2010). Readers routinely represent implied object rotation: the role of visual experience. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(9), 16651670.
Waters, W. E., & O’Connor, P. J. (1975). Prevalence of migraine. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 38(6), 613616.
Yang, J., & Shu, H. (2016). Involvement of the motor system in comprehension of non-literal action language: a meta-analysis study. Brain Topography, 29(1), 94107.
Yee, E. (2017). Fluid semantics: semantic knowledge is experience-based and dynamic. In Lahiri, A. & Kotzor, S. (Eds.), The speech processing lexicon: neurocognitive and behavioural approaches (pp. 235254). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Zwaan, R. A., & Pecher, D. (2012). Revisiting mental simulation in language comprehension: six replication attempts. PloS One, 7(12). Online <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051382>.
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

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed