ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Prediction error coding as the computational basis for nocifensive and nocifensive-like behaviors.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nocifensive behavior (NB) is a protective response to noxious stimuli that threaten tissue damage. However, similar motor responses, termed nocifensive-like behavior (NLB), can be evoked by unexpected innocuous stimuli. This observation challenges strict "labeled-line" models of pain, raising a fundamental question: how does the nervous system discriminate true threats from false alarms? We review evidence suggesting NB and NLB exist on a shared behavioral continuum, where defensive responses aren't determined solely by sensory input but by the brain's integrated threat assessment. This assessment computes the probability of harm by weighing somatosensory input against contextual factors like prior experience and multisensory cues. We propose this process is governed by a threat prediction error (TPE) mechanism, which is computationally analogous to the reward prediction error (RPE) mechanism encoded by the dopaminergic system. Under this framework, defensive responses are scaled to the magnitude of the TPE - the discrepancy between expected and actual sensory outcomes. Critically, this means the surprise of a benign touch in a dangerous environment can produce a larger TPE - and a stronger withdrawal - than the anticipation of a noxious pinprick in a safe environment. Furthermore, while NLB represents an adaptive response that can be permanently resolved as the stimulus is learned to be non-threatening, NB represents an innate response, permitting only transient suppression due to the real risk of injury. This model positions defensive behaviors as dynamic perceptual decisions arising from probabilistic inference, offering a unified theory for how context and expectation gate the expression of protective motor programs.
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.