3 Dutch words appeared around the screen (Font 28 Arial, in Black, 1st letter order PNU-100480 capitalized, 5 cm under the fixation cross and interspaced by five cm). These words have been “painful” (“pijnlijk”), “happy” (“blij”), and “neutral” (“neutraal”). Participants were explicitly informed that a sub-optimal facial expression was presented on each trial and they had been asked to classify that by mouse-clicking the corresponding word. Words have been presented until a response was given and following every trial the position with the cursor was returned to the center in the screen. Participants were instructed to guess if they could not see the facial expression. The 3 facial expression sorts had been presented inside a randomized manner (each expression was presented four occasions, so the activity had total of 48 trials). If participants 
had been unaware of the primes, this was indicated by performance at chance level (i.e., 33 ) on this prime awareness task.ResultsParticipant CharacteristicsTable 1 presents an overview of participants’ scores on the questionnaires. The PCS and FPQ ratings with the present sample are get CVT-3146 comparable to PCS and FPQ ratings of related samples in previously published studies (Van Damme et al., 2000; Roelofs et al., 2005; Engelen et al., 2006).Priming Activity PerformanceThis section focuses on RT analyses1 Incorrect responses (M = two.five , SD = 2.1) and responses slower than 1000 ms (less than 1 from the trials) were removed before RT analyses. Also, we noticed that resulting from a software program failure, during 20.8 of trials the presentation time for at the very least one stimulus (a mask,ApparatusElectrocutaneous stimulus delivery, task presentations, and logging of button presses had been controlled by a Dell Optiplex 755 personal computer (OS: windows XP; 2 GB RAM; Intel Core2 DuoTABLE 1 | Participants’ mean scores around the questionnaires (N = 22). Questionnaires Discomfort Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) Total score/Subscale Total Rumination Magnification Helplessness Fear of Pain Questionnaire (FPQ) Total Extreme pain Minor Discomfort Medical Discomfort Mean 14.64 six.86 3.18 4.59 68.77 32.77 15.36 20.There was not enough variability within the error rates to enable for parametric analyses (see Supplementary Table S1 in supplementary materials).Median 13.50 eight.00 two.00 four.00 65.50 33.00 15.50 18.SD ten.03 4.70 2.48 four.01 13.47 five.99 four.52 5.Minimum 0 0 0 0 46 20 10Maximum 30 13 9 12 96 42 29Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgJuly 2015 | Volume 6 | ArticleKhatibi et al.Observation of discomfort and action readinessthe prime, or the blank presented immediately after the prime) was zero rather than 13 ms, so these trials had been removed in the analyses at the same time. Immediately after removing these trials, there had been a minimum of 14 (M = 18.8, SD = 0.7, range: 14?3 trials) trials for each subject throughout each and every block and each 
condition which was adequate for the purpose of analyses. The reported analyses were performed on mean RTs. Imply RTs were subjected to a repeated-measures ANOVA with electrocutaneous stimulation (two levels: aversive electrocutaneous stimulation vs. no electrocutaneous stimulation) and facial expression variety (3 levels: painful vs. satisfied vs. neutral) as within subjects variables. Mean RTs (SD) as a function of electrocutaneous stimulation and facial expression kind are presented in Table 2. There was a considerable principal effect of electrocutaneous stimulation [F(1,21) = 15.90, p = 0.001, 2 = 0.43] with faster p RTs to targets preceded by aversive electrocutaneous stimulation (M = 334.7 ms, SD = 29.four) than to targets preceded by no elec.Three Dutch words appeared around the screen (Font 28 Arial, in Black, First letter capitalized, five cm beneath the fixation cross and interspaced by five cm). These words have been “painful” (“pijnlijk”), “happy” (“blij”), and “neutral” (“neutraal”). Participants have been explicitly informed that a sub-optimal facial expression was presented on each and every trial and they were asked to classify that by mouse-clicking the corresponding word. Words had been presented until a response was provided and just after each and every trial the position of the cursor was returned for the center on the screen. Participants have been instructed to guess if they could not see the facial expression. The 3 facial expression sorts had been presented in a randomized manner (every single expression was presented four occasions, so the process had total of 48 trials). If participants had been unaware with the primes, this was indicated by overall performance at likelihood level (i.e., 33 ) on this prime awareness task.ResultsParticipant CharacteristicsTable 1 presents an overview of participants’ scores around the questionnaires. The PCS and FPQ ratings with the present sample are comparable to PCS and FPQ ratings of equivalent samples in previously published research (Van Damme et al., 2000; Roelofs et al., 2005; Engelen et al., 2006).Priming Process PerformanceThis section focuses on RT analyses1 Incorrect responses (M = 2.five , SD = 2.1) and responses slower than 1000 ms (much less than 1 from the trials) had been removed before RT analyses. Also, we noticed that because of a software program failure, in the course of 20.eight of trials the presentation time for at the very least one stimulus (a mask,ApparatusElectrocutaneous stimulus delivery, job presentations, and logging of button presses have been controlled by a Dell Optiplex 755 pc (OS: windows XP; two GB RAM; Intel Core2 DuoTABLE 1 | Participants’ mean scores on the questionnaires (N = 22). Questionnaires Discomfort Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) Total score/Subscale Total Rumination Magnification Helplessness Fear of Pain Questionnaire (FPQ) Total Severe pain Minor Discomfort Health-related Discomfort Mean 14.64 six.86 three.18 four.59 68.77 32.77 15.36 20.There was not enough variability in the error prices to permit for parametric analyses (see Supplementary Table S1 in supplementary components).Median 13.50 eight.00 2.00 four.00 65.50 33.00 15.50 18.SD ten.03 4.70 two.48 four.01 13.47 5.99 4.52 five.Minimum 0 0 0 0 46 20 10Maximum 30 13 9 12 96 42 29Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgJuly 2015 | Volume 6 | ArticleKhatibi et al.Observation of discomfort and action readinessthe prime, or the blank presented soon after the prime) was zero instead of 13 ms, so these trials had been removed in the analyses as well. Immediately after removing these trials, there were at the least 14 (M = 18.eight, SD = 0.7, range: 14?three trials) trials for each topic throughout every block and each and every condition which was adequate for the objective of analyses. The reported analyses had been performed on imply RTs. Imply RTs were subjected to a repeated-measures ANOVA with electrocutaneous stimulation (two levels: aversive electrocutaneous stimulation vs. no electrocutaneous stimulation) and facial expression variety (three levels: painful vs. satisfied vs. neutral) as within subjects things. Mean RTs (SD) as a function of electrocutaneous stimulation and facial expression sort are presented in Table 2. There was a considerable major impact of electrocutaneous stimulation [F(1,21) = 15.90, p = 0.001, two = 0.43] with faster p RTs to targets preceded by aversive electrocutaneous stimulation (M = 334.7 ms, SD = 29.4) than to targets preceded by no elec.
