Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41087400›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Dynamic learning of the meaning of information changes pain perception.

Emily J Hird, Christiana Charalambous, Wael El-Deredy, Anthony K P Jones, Deborah Talmi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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. 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

5 authors.

Emily J Hird *Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, Alexandra House, 17 Queen Square, London, UK. e.hird@ucl.ac.uk.
Christiana Charalambous *Department of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Wael El-DeredyCentro de Investigación y Desarrollo en Ingeniería en Salud, Universidad de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile.
Anthony K P JonesDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Deborah TalmiDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Site, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

BASAL AFB240002Exploracion 13240064FONDECYT 1241695Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Beliefs influence the intensity of perceived pain. We previously applied regression models to two independent pain-cueing datasets ( https://osf.io/5r6z7/ ) and found that pain intensity reports were a function of the error between participants' beliefs and the actual stimulation they received, such that greater error decreased the influence of prior beliefs. Although this result appeared to present a challenge to established models of perception, our former analyses did not formally compare the result against established computational models. Here ( https://osf.io/fj27k/ ) we compared a model that corresponded to our original interpretation against Bayesian reinforcement learning models. We found that pain intensity perception was best explained by a model in which the expected value of each information cue was updated via a Bayesian reinforcement learning algorithm. In addition to their importance for understanding the fundamental mechanism that underlies pain perception, these new results indicate that deception pain studies should not assume that participants' belief about the information they are given is fixed. Rather, our results provide evidence that the meaning of cues change dynamically over the course of the session through trial-by-trial updates, even when participants are instructed otherwise.

Indexed as

LearningPainPain PerceptionAdultAlgorithmsBayes TheoremCuesFemaleHumansMalePain MeasurementYoung AdultBayesian reinforcement learningExpectationPainPlacebo analgesia

Identifiers

PMID41087400
PMCPMC12521376

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.