Literature DB >> 23115343

Peak-end memory bias in laboratory-induced dyspnea: a comparison of patients with medically unexplained symptoms and healthy controls.

Katleen Bogaerts1, Li Wan, Ilse Van Diest, Linda Stans, Marc Decramer, Omer Van den Bergh.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Memory for unpleasant experiences is dominated by intensity at the experience's peak and end, with a relative neglect for its duration. Therefore, unpleasant somatic experiences are expected be remembered as less aversive when they end gradually rather than abruptly, even when they last longer (i.e., the "peak-end effect"). We investigated the peak-end effect for dyspnea in healthy participants and in patients with medically unexplained dyspnea (MUD).
METHODS: Two aversive dyspnea-inducing tasks were administered to a clinical MUD sample (n = 29) and a matched healthy control group (n = 29) using a rebreathing paradigm (60-second room air, 150-second rebreathing). In a short trial, the breathing system (mouthpiece) was removed immediately after peak dyspnea. In a long trial, breathing was switched to room air after peak dyspnea and continued in the breathing system for 150 seconds (order was counterbalanced across participants). Respiratory parameters were continuously measured, and dyspnea was rated every 10 seconds. Relative unpleasantness of the dyspneic episode was assessed with forced choice questions.
RESULTS: More than 70% of the healthy group found the short episode worse than the long one despite equal maximal dyspnea (p = .02). Patients with MUD did not show this peak-end effect (p = .58). The latter had deficient recovery of dyspnea compared with the controls (42.08 [21.86] versus 17.51 [11.18], p < .001), which could not be explained by differences in respiratory physiology.
CONCLUSIONS: The peak-end effect in dyspnea has important implications for dyspnea measurement. Its absence in patients with MUD suggests a critical role of distorted perceptual-cognitive processing of aversive somatic sensations in patients with medically unexplained symptoms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23115343     DOI: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e318273099c

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychosom Med        ISSN: 0033-3174            Impact factor:   4.312


  4 in total

Review 1.  Ambulatory and diary methods can facilitate the measurement of patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Stefan Schneider; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Subjective evaluation of experimental dyspnoea--effects of isocapnia and repeated exposure.

Authors:  Anja Hayen; Mari Herigstad; Katja Wiech; Kyle T S Pattinson
Journal:  Respir Physiol Neurobiol       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 1.931

3.  Comparing recalled versus experienced symptoms of breathlessness ratings: An ecological assessment study using mobile phone technology.

Authors:  Jacob Sandberg; Josefin Sundh; Peter Anderberg; David C Currow; Miriam Johnson; Robert Lansing; Magnus Ekström
Journal:  Respirology       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 6.175

4.  Are within-person Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) ratings of breathlessness 'on average' valid in advanced disease for patients and for patients' informal carers?

Authors:  Joshua Wade; Silvia Mendonca; Sara Booth; Gail Ewing; A Carole Gardener; Morag Farquhar
Journal:  BMJ Open Respir Res       Date:  2017-10-11
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.