Trocutaneous stimulation (M = 345.0 ms, SD = 30.8). There was no main effect of

Trocutaneous Tubercidin site stimulation (M = 345.0 ms, SD = 30.8). There was no main effect of facial expression type [F(2,42) = 0.20, p = 0.90, 2 = 0.001]. However, a significant interaction between p order SHP099 electrocutaneous stimulation and facial expression type emerged [F(2,42) = 4.57, p = 0.02, 2 = 0.18]. p In order to address this significant interaction, an index of response facilitation was computed by subtracting mean RT to targets preceded by aversive electrocutaneous stimulation from RTs to targets preceded by no electrocutaneous stimulation. A post hoc t-test, comparing this index against zero (i.e., no response facilitation) indicated response facilitation for targets preceded by electrocutaneous stimulation following painful expressions [M = 21.4, SD = 24.2, t(21) = 4.12, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.98]. However, following happy [M = 8.1, SD = 20.5, t(21) = 1.81, p = 0.08, Cohen's d = 0.40] and neutral expressions [M = 1.2, SD = 20.8, t(21) = 0.28, p = 0.78, Cohen's d = 0.06] no significant response facilitation emerged (Figure 2). The observed facilitation of responses in trials with painful expressions was significantly different from trials with neutral expression [t(21) = 2.76, p = 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.59]. There was no such a difference between trials with happy expressions and neutral expressions [t(21) = 1.31, p = 0.21, Cohen's d = 0.28], nor between painful expressions and happy expressions [t(21) = 1.75, p = 0.09, Cohen's d = 0.37]. Inclusion of PCS or FPQ as centered covariate into the ANOVA described above did not change the reported pattern of results and did not reveal any new main effect or interaction.Pain RatingTable 3 provides an overview of mean (SD) ratings of painfulness, intensity and unpleasantness separately for each facial expression type. Ratings of painfulness, intensity, and unpleasantness were subjected to three separate repeated measures ANOVAs with facial expression type (three levels: painful, happy, neutral) as within-subjects factor. For painfulness ratings, the main effect of facial expression type shows a trend toward significance [F(2,42) = 2.81, p = 0.07, 2 = 0.12). Mean painfulness ratings were higher following p painful expressions (M = 5.81, SD = 1.9) than following happy expressions (M = 5.18, SD = 2.4) [t(21) = 2.08, p = 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.44]. There were no significant differences between painfulness ratings following neutral expressions (M = 5.55, SD = 1.9) and either happy [t(21) = 1.40, p = 0.18, Cohen's d = 0.30] or painful expressions [t(21) = 1.14, p = 0.27, Cohen's d = 0.24]. For intensity ratings, the effect of facial expression type did not reach statistical significance [although it showed a trend: F(2,42) = 2.69, p = 0.09, 2 = 0.11]. Mean intensity ratings were p higher following painful expressions (M = 5.68, SD = 2.0) than following happy expressions (M = 5.23, SD = 2.3) [t(21) = 2.08, p = 0.06, Cohen's d = 0.43], though this comparison also did not reach significance. There were no differences between intensity ratings following neutral expressions (M = 5.45, SD = 2.1) and either happy [t(21) = 1.31, p = 0.2, Cohen's d = 0.28] or painful expressions [t(21) = 1.23, p = 0.2, Cohen's d = 0.26]. For unpleasantness ratings, there was no significant main effect of facial expression type [F(2,42) = 1.66, p = 0.26, 2 = 0.13]. pPrime Awareness CheckOverall prime awareness was 37 which was not significantly higher than chance level (i.e., 33 ), [t(21) = 1.54, p = 0.14, Cohen's d = 0.36], suggesting th.Trocutaneous stimulation (M = 345.0 ms, SD = 30.8). There was no main effect of facial expression type [F(2,42) = 0.20, p = 0.90, 2 = 0.001]. However, a significant interaction between p electrocutaneous stimulation and facial expression type emerged [F(2,42) = 4.57, p = 0.02, 2 = 0.18]. p In order to address this significant interaction, an index of response facilitation was computed by subtracting mean RT to targets preceded by aversive electrocutaneous stimulation from RTs to targets preceded by no electrocutaneous stimulation. A post hoc t-test, comparing this index against zero (i.e., no response facilitation) indicated response facilitation for targets preceded by electrocutaneous stimulation following painful expressions [M = 21.4, SD = 24.2, t(21) = 4.12, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.98]. However, following happy [M = 8.1, SD = 20.5, t(21) = 1.81, p = 0.08, Cohen's d = 0.40] and neutral expressions [M = 1.2, SD = 20.8, t(21) = 0.28, p = 0.78, Cohen's d = 0.06] no significant response facilitation emerged (Figure 2). The observed facilitation of responses in trials with painful expressions was significantly different from trials with neutral expression [t(21) = 2.76, p = 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.59]. There was no such a difference between trials with happy expressions and neutral expressions [t(21) = 1.31, p = 0.21, Cohen's d = 0.28], nor between painful expressions and happy expressions [t(21) = 1.75, p = 0.09, Cohen's d = 0.37]. Inclusion of PCS or FPQ as centered covariate into the ANOVA described above did not change the reported pattern of results and did not reveal any new main effect or interaction.Pain RatingTable 3 provides an overview of mean (SD) ratings of painfulness, intensity and unpleasantness separately for each facial expression type. Ratings of painfulness, intensity, and unpleasantness were subjected to three separate repeated measures ANOVAs with facial expression type (three levels: painful, happy, neutral) as within-subjects factor. For painfulness ratings, the main effect of facial expression type shows a trend toward significance [F(2,42) = 2.81, p = 0.07, 2 = 0.12). Mean painfulness ratings were higher following p painful expressions (M = 5.81, SD = 1.9) than following happy expressions (M = 5.18, SD = 2.4) [t(21) = 2.08, p = 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.44]. There were no significant differences between painfulness ratings following neutral expressions (M = 5.55, SD = 1.9) and either happy [t(21) = 1.40, p = 0.18, Cohen's d = 0.30] or painful expressions [t(21) = 1.14, p = 0.27, Cohen's d = 0.24]. For intensity ratings, the effect of facial expression type did not reach statistical significance [although it showed a trend: F(2,42) = 2.69, p = 0.09, 2 = 0.11]. Mean intensity ratings were p higher following painful expressions (M = 5.68, SD = 2.0) than following happy expressions (M = 5.23, SD = 2.3) [t(21) = 2.08, p = 0.06, Cohen's d = 0.43], though this comparison also did not reach significance. There were no differences between intensity ratings following neutral expressions (M = 5.45, SD = 2.1) and either happy [t(21) = 1.31, p = 0.2, Cohen's d = 0.28] or painful expressions [t(21) = 1.23, p = 0.2, Cohen's d = 0.26]. For unpleasantness ratings, there was no significant main effect of facial expression type [F(2,42) = 1.66, p = 0.26, 2 = 0.13]. pPrime Awareness CheckOverall prime awareness was 37 which was not significantly higher than chance level (i.e., 33 ), [t(21) = 1.54, p = 0.14, Cohen's d = 0.36], suggesting th.