Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40955740›Full record

ArticleHeadache2026

Evidence for increased background neural noise in migraine with aura: Hyperactive but not hyperresponsive.

Louise O'Hare, Paul B Hibbard, Arnold J Wilkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Headache, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Louise O'HareNottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0331-3646
Paul B HibbardUniversity of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6133-6729
Arnold J WilkinsUniversity of Essex, Colchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9322-0461

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study had two aims: (1) to investigate the contrast gain in migraine and compare it to that in photosensitive epilepsy; (2) to explore any effects of colored spectacles (precision ophthalmic tints [POT]) on contrast gain.

backgroundIndividuals with migraine with aura (MA) typically show high amplitude electrophysiological responses, but poor performance on visual tasks. One possible explanation is increased neural "noise" in the visual cortex in MA. "Noise" is neural activity that does not carry information about the stimulus.

methodsThis is a case-control study of individuals with MA and controls with no family history of migraine, as there is a tendency for migraine to run in families. We measured the steady-state visual evoked potential in response to a sinewave grating (striped pattern) that varied in contrast (appeared to flicker on and off) at 5 and 17 Hz in 15 MA and 15 control participants. The maximum contrast (stimulus intensity) increased progressively from 10% to 90% in nine equal steps. We also measured the effect of colored spectacles (POTs) on the electroencephalogram (EEG) response. The experiment was a mixed factorial design, with one between-participants factor (experimental vs. control group) and two within-participants factors (contrast and lens type [none, POT, or control]). The dependent variables were the steady-state visual evoked potential response, and the background EEG activity. In experiment 2, discomfort judgments on a rating scale of 0-9 from a separate set of 12 MA and 12 control participants were also collected during the EEG session. Data were collected between February 2022 and August 2024.

resultsAt the faster flicker rate of 17 Hz (appearing on and off 17 times per second), the electrophysiological response of the MA group showed increased background activity (EEG power at frequencies other than the stimulation frequency) (experiment 1: mean for the migraine group = -666.45 dB/Hz, standard error [SE] = 116.69; mean for the control group = -1100.50 dB/Hz, SE = 164.99; coefficient estimate = 434.09, p = 0.016, confidence interval [CI], 82.24-735.94; estimated Cohen's d of 0.94, CI, 0.14-1.73; experiment 2: migraine group mean = -500.01 dB/Hz, SE = 122.99; control group mean = -741.88 dB/Hz, SE = 126.12; coefficient estimate = 265.04, p = 0.049, CI, 1.52-528.56, estimated Cohen's d of 0.95, CI, 0.05-1.84). The increase in EEG power with contrast at the stimulation frequency was similar in both MA and control groups. The MA group experienced more discomfort compared to the control group (median rating for migraine group = 4, interquartile range [IQR] = 4, median rating for control group = 3, IQR = 3, coefficient estimate = 3.58, p = 0.003, CI, 1.18-6.00) and faster flicker (17 Hz) was judged more uncomfortable than slower flicker (5 Hz) by both groups (median rating for 5 Hz = 3, IQR = 3, median rating for 17 Hz = 4, IQR = 4, coefficient estimate = 0.97, p < 0.001, CI, 0.49-1.45). There was no specific reduction in EEG response in the MA group compared to controls with POTs.

conclusionsThe increased EEG responses in MA show evidence that in migraine the brain is "noisier" compared to controls. As the contrast response was similar in both MA and control groups, this suggests typical contrast gain control, as distinct from the abnormality seen previously in photosensitive epilepsy. The chosen color of POTs can reduce discomfort judgments under some circumstances, although this does not appear to be specific to MA.

Indexed as

Contrast SensitivityEvoked Potentials, VisualMigraine with AuraVisual CortexAdultCase-Control StudiesElectroencephalographyEpilepsy, ReflexEyeglassesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhotic StimulationYoung Adultcontrastelectroencephalographynoiseprecision ophthalmic tintssweep visual evoked potential

Identifiers

PMID40955740
PMCPMC12951707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.