ArticleScientific reports2025
Dynamic learning of the meaning of information changes pain perception.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
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
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.