ArticleBehavior research methods2020
Simultaneous tracking of psychophysical detection thresholds and evoked potentials to study nociceptive processing.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observation of nociceptive detection thresholds and cortical evoked potentials: Go/no-go versus two-interval forced choice.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
- Nociceptive Intra-epidermal Electric Stimulation Evokes Steady-State Responses in the Secondary Somatosensory Cortex.Brain topography · 2022Article
- Simultaneous measurement of intra-epidermal electric detection thresholds and evoked potentials for observation of nociceptive processing following sleep deprivation.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Observation of Nociceptive Processing: Effect of Intra-Epidermal Electric Stimulus Properties on Detection Probability and Evoked Potentials.Brain topography · 2021Article
- Transcutaneous auricular VNS applied to experimental pain: A paired behavioral and EEG study using thermonociceptive CO2 laser.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measuring altered nociceptive processing involved in chronic pain is difficult due to a lack of objective methods. Potential methods to characterize human nociceptive processing involve measuring neurophysiological activity and psychophysical responses to well-defined stimuli. To reliably measure neurophysiological activity in response to nociceptive stimulation using EEG, synchronized activation of nerve fibers and a large number of stimuli are required. On the other hand, to reliably measure psychophysical detection thresholds, selection of stimulus amplitudes around the detection threshold and many stimulus-response pairs are required. Combining the two techniques helps in quantifying the properties of nociceptive processing related to detected and non-detected stimuli around the detection threshold.The two techniques were combined in an experiment including 20 healthy participants to study the effect of intra-epidermal electrical stimulus properties (i.e. amplitude, single- or double-pulse and trial number) on the detection thresholds and vertex potentials. Generalized mixed regression and linear mixed regression were used to quantify the psychophysical detection probability and neurophysiological EEG responses, respectively.It was shown that the detection probability is significantly modulated by the stimulus amplitude, trial number, and the interaction between stimulus type and amplitude. Furthermore, EEG responses were significantly modulated by stimulus detection and trial number. Hence, we successfully demonstrated the possibility to simultaneously obtain information on psychophysical and neurophysiological properties of nociceptive processing. These results warrant further investigation of the potential of this method to observe altered nociceptive processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.