ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2025
Investigating the Influence of Experimentally Induced Secondary Hyperalgesia on Pain Prediction Error Encoding in Healthy Individuals: A Novel Virtual Reality Protocol.
Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 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.
- Design of Immersive Virtual Reality Systems and Their Application in Zoster-Associated Pain Following Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Investigating the Influence of Experimentally Induced Secondary Hyperalgesia on Pain Prediction Error Encoding in Healthy Individuals: A Novel Virtual Reality Protocol.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPersistent mismatches between predicted and actual pain-related signals, namely prediction errors (PEs), can cause maladaptive overestimation of pain intensity, a common feature of chronic pain states. Experimental protocols used to assess the contribution of central sensitisation (CS) to dysregulated prediction systems are lacking. To address this, we implemented a novel virtual reality (VR) paradigm to evoke PEs during mechanical stimulation following experimentally induced CS via the high-frequency stimulation (HFS) model.
methodsTwenty healthy volunteers underwent HFS on the right forearm. Mechanical pain sensitivity (MPS) was assessed through pinprick stimuli before and 30 min post-HFS to evaluate secondary hyperalgesia. Following this, participants received mechanical stimuli at proximal (sensitised area) and distal (non-sensitised area) points from the HFS site, with visual cues presented on their arm via VR alongside hand tracking technology indicating the stimulus location, allowing participants to make pain predictions. Cues were either congruent (matching) or incongruent (mismatching) with the actual stimulus site to evoke PEs.
resultsResults showed that MPS significantly increased following HFS, confirming secondary hyperalgesia. Stimuli in sensitised areas induced more pain than in non-sensitised areas. Incongruent cues successfully elicited PEs across all locations; however, expectations modulated pain perception only in non-sensitised areas. Similarly, during incongruent trials, PEs diminished over time (reflecting adaptive learning) only in non-sensitised areas.
conclusionsThese data demonstrate that pain expectations can influence pain perception differently in centrally sensitised and non-sensitised states. We propose this protocol as a good candidate to assess how cognitive and psychological manipulations influence PEs at various stages of CS. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: We introduce a novel VR paradigm to show that secondary hyperalgesia alters how pain expectations and prediction errors influence pain perception, highlighting distinct adaptive learning patterns.
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.