Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34983852›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022

Temporal-spectral signaling of sensory information and expectations in the cerebral processing of pain.

Moritz M Nickel, Laura Tiemann, Vanessa D Hohn, Elisabeth S May, Cristina Gil Ávila, Falk Eippert, Markus Ploner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Moritz M NickelDepartment of Neurology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich 81675, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6614-243X
Laura TiemannDepartment of Neurology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich 81675, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5261-5459
Vanessa D HohnDepartment of Neurology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich 81675, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6248-2250
Elisabeth S MayDepartment of Neurology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich 81675, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8558-6447
Cristina Gil ÁvilaDepartment of Neurology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich 81675, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3789-0644
Falk EippertMax Planck Research Group Pain Perception, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig 04103, Germany.
Markus PlonerDepartment of Neurology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich 81675, Germany; markus.ploner@tum.de.ORCID 0000-0002-7767-7170
Technical University of Munich · DEMax Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The perception of pain is shaped by somatosensory information about threat. However, pain is also influenced by an individual's expectations. Such expectations can result in clinically relevant modulations and abnormalities of pain. In the brain, sensory information, expectations (predictions), and discrepancies thereof (prediction errors) are signaled by an extended network of brain areas which generate evoked potentials and oscillatory responses at different latencies and frequencies. However, a comprehensive picture of how evoked and oscillatory brain responses signal sensory information, predictions, and prediction errors in the processing of pain is lacking so far. Here, we therefore applied brief painful stimuli to 48 healthy human participants and independently modulated sensory information (stimulus intensity) and expectations of pain intensity while measuring brain activity using electroencephalography (EEG). Pain ratings confirmed that pain intensity was shaped by both sensory information and expectations. In contrast, Bayesian analyses revealed that stimulus-induced EEG responses at different latencies (the N1, N2, and P2 components) and frequencies (alpha, beta, and gamma oscillations) were shaped by sensory information but not by expectations. Expectations, however, shaped alpha and beta oscillations before the painful stimuli. These findings indicate that commonly analyzed EEG responses to painful stimuli are more involved in signaling sensory information than in signaling expectations or mismatches of sensory information and expectations. Moreover, they indicate that the effects of expectations on pain are served by brain mechanisms which differ from those conveying effects of sensory information on pain.

Indexed as

Signal TransductionBayes TheoremBrainElectroencephalographyHumansPainPain Measurementbrainelectroencephalographyoscillationspainpredictive coding

Identifiers

PMID34983852
PMCPMC8740684
OpenAlexW4220669077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.