ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
Short-Term Nociceptive Memory: Reduced Discriminability and Multiple Encoding Biases.
Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistortions in pain memory carry important clinical implications, yet the processes underlying retention of nociceptive information remain incompletely understood. This study examined how the intensity of painful somatosensory inputs is maintained in memory over different intervals.
methodsTwenty-five participants received pairs of nociceptive or non-nociceptive electrical stimuli at varying inter-stimulus intervals (3, 8, 13, 18 s), and judged whether the second stimulus was of higher, equal, or lower intensity than the first.
resultsIn accordance with Weber-Fletcher Law, perceptual discriminability was lower in the nociceptive condition, leading to a decreased accuracy despite comparable confidence ratings. Memory performance declined with temporal delay similarly for both modalities. Accuracy increased when the second stimulus was more intense than the first. For nociceptive stimuli only, accuracy deteriorated disproportionately when the second stimulus was weaker, suggesting a directional encoding bias specific to pain. When errors occurred, participants overestimated the intensity of the second stimulus, a bias more pronounced for nociceptive stimuli. Such overestimation was linked to memory encoding and disappeared when participants rated stimuli without memory demand.
conclusionsShort-term memory for nociceptive stimuli proved less accurate, more directionally biased, and more prone to overestimation than for non-nociceptive inputs. While this performance gap is largely explained by reduced perceptual discriminability at pain intensities, modality-specific distortions point to additional constraints imposed by nociceptive processing on memory encoding and maintenance. SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides psychophysical evidence for differences in short-term memory retention of nociceptive versus non-nociceptive sensory input, with implications for understanding pain memory distortions in clinical contexts.
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.