ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2025
Pathophysiological changes in incentive processing in episodic migraine: a preliminary event-related potential study.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How time pressure disrupts inhibitory control: neural dissociations between interference and response inhibition.Behavioral and brain functions : BBF · 2026Article
- Mesocorticolimbic circuitry in episodic migraine: reward- and punishment-related responses and resting-state connectivity.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined pathophysiological changes in incentive processing in migraineurs. Nineteen episodic migraine (EM) patients and 19 healthy controls (HCs) performed a monetary incentive delay task while their event-related potentials were recorded. During the incentive anticipation phase, both Cue-N2 and Cue-P3 amplitudes were responsive to incentive cues in both groups, indicating no between-group differences in the distinct anticipatory subprocesses that underly incentive cue evaluation. During the outcome phase, the feedback-related negativity amplitude, associated with performance evaluation, was larger for punishing feedback than rewarding feedback across both groups. However, the feedback-P3 amplitude, linked to attentional processing of motivational value of outcome feedback, was significantly larger for rewarding feedback than punishing feedback in HCs, but not in EM patients. Moreover, a significant negative correlation was observed between the feedback-P3 amplitude difference for rewarding minus punishing feedback and subjective pain intensity in EM patients. Finally, the feedback late-positive potential amplitude, related to affective processing of affective value of outcome feedback, was significantly larger for punishing feedback than rewarding feedback only in HCs, but not in EM patients. Our findings suggest that recurrent severe pain may relate to abnormal incentive-related brain activity during the outcome phase of incentive 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.