{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04953560371517028, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015995872033023734, 'mean_word_length': 5.5286195286195285, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Positive affect and distraction enhance while negative affect impairs pain modulation in recurrent low back pain patients and matched controls.

ABSTRACT
Pathophysiological causes of low back pain (LBP) remain generally unclear, so focus has shifted to psychosocial features and central pain processing. Effects of attentional and affective manipulation on conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and tonic pain perception were examined in thirty recurrent LBP patients in two sessions, one with and one without clinical pain, and compared to healthy participants. Phasic cuff pressure on one leg, scored on a numerical rating scale (NRS), was used for test-stimuli (TS) and contralateral tonic cuff pain rated on an electronic visual analogue scale (eVAS) was the conditioning-stimulus (CS). TS were assessed before and during: 1) control with no manipulation/CS, 2) three attentional manipulations (Flanker with/without CS or CS-Only), and 3) three affective manipulations (positive, neutral, negative pictures) with CS. Greater inhibition of TS-NRS scores was observed in CS-only (P=0.028), combined CS&attention (P=0.026), and CS&Positive (P=0.006) than Control paradigms, and greater in CS&Positive (P=0.019) than CS&Negative paradigms. eVAS scores of CS pain increased throughout all paradigms with CS (P<0.05), except the CS&Positive paradigm, and greater facilitation was observed in the CS-Only paradigm than all others (P<0.02) and lower facilitation was additionally observed in the CS&Positive paradigm compared to CS&Attention and CS&Negative paradigms (P<0.01). Flanker effects and interruptive effects of CS pain on attention were observed consistent with prior findings, and affective manipulation produced less shift in valence among people with RLBP than controls (P<0.05). Attention and positive affect with CS pain evoked CPM, and all attentional/affective tasks, especially positive affect, reduced facilitation of CS pain.