Inducing Somatic Symptoms in Functional Syndrome Patients: Effects of Manipulating State Negative Affect 2017 Van Den Houte et al

Abstract

Objective
Induction of negative affective states can enhance bodily symptoms in high habitual symptom reporters among healthy persons and in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. The aims of this study were to replicate this effect in patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome and to investigate the role of moderators, focusing on alexithymia, negative affectivity, and absorption.

Methods
Patients with fibromyalgia and/or chronic fatigue syndrome (n = 81) and HCs (n = 41) viewed series of neutral, positive, and negative affective pictures. After every picture series, participants filled out a somatic symptom checklist and rated emotions experienced during the picture series on valence, arousal, and perceived control.

Results
Patients reported more somatic symptoms after viewing negative pictures (least square mean [LSM] = 19.40, standard error (SE) = 0.50) compared with neutral (LSM = 17.59, SE = 0.42, p < .001) or positive (LSM = 17.04, SE = 0.41, p < .001) pictures, whereas somatic symptom ratings of HCs after viewing negative picture series (LSM = 12.07, SE = 0.71) did not differ from ratings after viewing neutral (LSM = 11.07, SE = 0.59, p = .065) or positive (LSM = 11.10, SE = 0.58, p = .93) pictures. Negative affectivity did not moderate the symptom-enhancing effect of negative affective pictures, whereas the alexithymia factor “difficulty identifying feelings” and absorption did (p = .016 and p = .006, respectively).

Conclusion
Negative affective states elicit elevated somatic symptom reports in patients experiencing fibromyalgia and/or chronic fatigue syndrome. This symptom-enhancing effect is greater in patients having higher difficulty to identify feelings and higher absorption scores. The results are discussed in a predictive coding framework of symptom perception.

Paywall, https://journals.lww.com/psychosoma...omatic_symptoms_in_functional_syndrome.7.aspx

 

This is just a worse version of "don't think of an apple, ha! you just thought of an apple".

The fact that healthy controls score over 10 on their scale shows that it's basically useless.

Good grief this is mediocre. It feels like being pawn in the circus of a bunch of overprivileged aristocrats in ancient Rome, where they just toy with people for their enjoyment.

 

I haven't looked it up yet, but please tell me that they did at least rotate the order in which the 'batteries' were done across participants? - as per you'd be taught in an undergraduate first year research class would be basic to randomise, just for any normal sample. For all sorts of reasons not to do with 'emotions' or SSD or the illnesses above.

Given that exhaustion is a prime factor for both conditions as is orthostatic intolerance and discomfort from whatever the chair and I assume computer set-up would pose for most, which would certainly be something which presents and increases over time and combines with the exhaustion then if they didn't all they would really be exhibiting is the impact of those two factors on symptoms. And presenting the photoseries they wanted to 'at the time the symptoms would increase'.

It would be like having people with diabetes doing the same but getting them to miss lunch and claiming their 'increase in symptoms' must have been due to an aversion to the last slides - and so cause the condition - whether they be different cartoon characters (Goofy makes diabetics iller than Donald Duck via the mind) or different 'emotions'.

I'm also not sure that the science is that strong on said cards 'eliciting emotions' that they claim.

Sounds more like the participants were thinking 'what is it that you are asking me to do' as they were faced with a bunch of faces they were basically having to guess at whether they were 'happy or sad' - rather than the claimed 'reporting the affect it caused them to feel'...... because that would be the reaction of most when given such a battery/series of photos, as it's pretty hard to look past the obviousness of the method and work past what people are actually being asked.

It's basically like a stroop test (where you might see the written word 'green' displayed in 'red' font, and so on and have to name the colour font), but worse. Because by assuming that the only thing affecting someone's emotions out of the entire set-up would be the photos, rather than the irritation with the experiment itself etc shows utter misunderstanding of both psychology, 'the mind', 'the body', is as dualistic as you get when they are sat in a non-ergonomic chair, and health conditions.

and that people wouldn't know that they weren't being asked that but expected to probably say something like whether they feel sadder looking at the sad pictures (because the agenda is obvious) would lead to them wanting to actually give the answer: I don't know what you are really trying to ask me

and so I'm not being cynical but its a fair analysis to say the 'alexithymia' they've interpreted is incorrect as they ticked the 'I don't know' box meaning something completely different to their interpretation.