Does symptom perception after negative affect induction differ between physically ill and healthy individuals? ... 2026 Jessen et al

Andy

Andy

Senior Member (Voting rights)
Full title: Does symptom perception after negative affect induction differ between physically ill and healthy individuals? An experimental study within SOMA.CK

Highlights​

  • Patients with ND-CKD and healthy controls reported higher symptom levels after negative pictures.
  • Habitual symptoms did not moderate symptom levels after negative pictures.
  • Difficulties in identifying feelings moderated symptom levels in the CKD group.
  • The ASP effect predicted CKD-specific symptom burden at 6 months.

Abstract​

Introduction​

Symptom perception is highly subjective and shaped by complex biopsychosocial factors. This study examined whether negative affect induction using the Affect and Symptoms Paradigm (ASP) influences symptom perception in patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (ND-CKD) and healthy controls.

Methods​

Participants watched three picture series (positive, negative, neutral) from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS). After each series, participants rated symptom levels (10-item-symptom-checklist), affective state (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule) and arousal (Self-Assessment-Manikin-System). Associations of the ASP effect with symptom burden at 6 and 12 months was analysed in the CKD group.

Results​

In N = 115 individuals with ND-CKD from the SOMA.CK study (mean age = 62.95, SD = 12.60) and 100 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (mean age = 60.00, SD = 12.80) negative pictures significantly increased negative affectivity and arousal. Symptom levels were higher after viewing negative versus positive/neutral pictures in both groups, but no significant interaction emerged, indicating a comparable response in both groups. Habitual symptoms did not moderate symptom levels after affect induction, although high habitual symptom reporters showed higher symptom levels across all picture categories. In the CKD group difficulties in identifying feelings moderated symptom levels after affect induction. The ASP effect predicted CKD-specific symptom burden at 6 months.

Conclusion​

Negative affect induction increases symptom levels in a chronic illness such as CKD. These results align with the predictive processing model which suggests that symptom perception develops from a complex inferential process of somatosensory input in light of pre-existing symptom representations in memory.

Open access
 
Seems to me like they have shown that it’s easy to manipulate responses to questionnaires. Nothing surprising here. They call this «symptoms perception», but what they actually measuring in the questionnaires is at least one step removed from perception.

They also found that baseline symptoms was the strongest predictor of symptoms at 6 and 12 months.

Based on the discussion, it seems like the predictive processing model is completely useless as making testable predictions, because no matter the direction of the result it’s in line with the model.
Based on the PPM, we assumed that the chronic condition could either reduce reactivity to the ASP effect due to elevated symptoms in general and therefore be less salient to additional input or could increase vulnerability to symptom perception through development of strong, precise symptom priors.
Click to expand...
Except that they managed to get the only result the PPM doesn’t predict: no difference between the groups:
However, symptom levels increased comparably in both groups (CKD and HC), which contradicts earlier research that found more pronounced symptom reporting in patients with FSS compared to HCs.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, it's important to check Thetan levels with the Thetan measuring machine. Or something like that.
Neither the main effect of group nor the picture category × group interaction reached significance, indicating that individuals with CKD and healthy controls responded similarly to affect induction.
Click to expand...
So, Thetan levels have nothing to do with anything, then. Or not, it's not as if this is any better than ye olde ink blots in a discussion about someone's mother.

I genuinely have no idea who this is for, or what they think it could be useful for. An in-depth analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of slam poetry on flower markets seems about as potentially useful as this. Just the fact that throughout the paper they talk about symptoms being perception, but then conclude that symptoms were raised, rather than their reporting, which is different from their perception, which itself is different from their sensations, kind of makes this an ink blot telephone game, worse and even less useful somehow.

Clinical psychology is the one field where if everything from the last 70 years just vanished, including the fact that it had vanished, no one would even notice because it would have zero meaningful impact on anything or anyone, there would be no measurable changes in real life outcomes.

Manipulating people in some contexts is easy. Why do it, though? Just, why?
 
rvallee said:
Yes, it's important to check Thetan levels with the Thetan measuring machine. Or something like that.

So, Thetan levels have nothing to do with anything, then. Or not, it's not as if this is any better than ye olde ink blots in a discussion about someone's mother.

I genuinely have no idea who this is for, or what they think it could be useful for. An in-depth analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of slam poetry on flower markets seems about as potentially useful as this. Just the fact that throughout the paper they talk about symptoms being perception, but then conclude that symptoms were raised, rather than their reporting, which is different from their perception, which itself is different from their sensations, kind of makes this an ink blot telephone game, worse and even less useful somehow.

Clinical psychology is the one field where if everything from the last 70 years just vanished, no one would even notice because it would have zero meaningful impact on anything or anyone.

Manipulating people in some contexts is easy. Why do it, though? Just, why?
Click to expand...
Why? How else can they get more positive answers after treatment.
Just show happy faces: 1 point. Show hugs : 2 points. Still does not add up to real improvement though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom