ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2026
A Robust Approach to Quantify Nocifensive Blink Reflex Responsiveness.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2026. 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.
- A Robust Approach to Quantify Nocifensive Blink Reflex Responsiveness.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The modulation of the hand-blink reflex (HBR), a prototypical nocifensive response, is increasingly used to investigate defensive behaviour, related to the notion of peripersonal space. However, HBR responsiveness is highly variable across participants. This variability has led researchers to use several seemingly arbitrary criteria to determine whether a subject should be included as a participant in a study. But are these criteria justified? Can better and more rigorous criteria be formulated? Does the traditional division into responders and non-responders reflect a practical decision to exclude participants with very low signal-to-noise ratio, or does it reflect two distinct biological categories? Here, we addressed these issues by systematically varying a set of parameters, which together form an objective and quantifiable criterion of HBR responsiveness. We describe classification criteria for HBR responsiveness that were both reliable and consistent with previous studies. We also found no evidence for a clear-cut biological distinction between HBR responders and non-responders. We recommend to (1) no longer preliminarily screen subjects, simply collecting data on all subjects, and (2), after collecting the data, only include subjects identified as blinkers using the following criteria: The mean of the rectified HBR must exceed 2.5 SD of the baseline EMG in 40% or more of trials in the hand-near condition. We formulate rigorous inclusion criteria for HBR studies, which can be adapted for use on other neurophysiological responses in health and disease.
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.