ABSTRACT
The human body has the ability to influence its sensation of pain by modifying the transfer of nociceptive information at the spinal level. This modulation, known as descending pain inhibition, is known to originate supraspinally and can be activated by a variety of ways including positive mental imagery. However, its exact mechanisms remain unknown. We investigated, using a longitudinal fMRI design, the brain activity leading up and in response to painful electrical stimulation when applying positive mental imagery before and after undergoing a previously established RIII-feedback paradigm. Time course analysis of the time preceding painful stimulation shows increased haemodynamic activity during the application of the strategy in the PFC, ACC, insula, thalamus, and hypothalamus. Time course analysis of the reaction to painful stimulation shows decreased reaction post-training in brainstem and thalamus, as well as the insula and dorsolateral PFC. Our work suggests that feedback training increases activity in areas involved in pain inhibition, while simultaneously decreasing the reaction to painful stimuli in brain areas related to pain processing, which points to an activation of decreased spinal nociception. We further suggest that the insula and the thalamus may play a more important role in pain modulation than previously assumed.
Subject(s)
Pain Management , Pain , Humans , Feedback , Brain , ThalamusABSTRACT
Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) describes the decrease in pain perception of a test stimulus (TS) when presented together with a heterotopic painful conditioning stimulus (CS). Inter-individual differences in CPM are large and have been suggested to reflect differences in endogenous pain modulation. In a previous analysis, we demonstrated that in young, healthy participants, inter-individual differences account for about one-third of CPM variance, with age and sex together explaining only 1%. Here, we investigated if psychological factors explain significant amounts of inter-individual variance in CPM. Using the same dataset as before, we performed both cross-sectional (n = 126) and repeated measures (n = 52, 118 observations) analysis and the corresponding variance decompositions, using results of psychological questionnaires assessing depression, trait anxiety and pain catastrophizing. Psychological factors did not significantly predict CPM magnitude, neither directly nor when interactions with the CPM paradigm were assessed; however, the interaction between depression and the paradigm approached significance. Variance decomposition showed that the interaction between depression and the CPM paradigm explained an appreciable amount of variance (3.0%), but this proportion seems small when compared to the residual inter-individual differences (35.4%). The main effects of the psychological factors and the interactions of anxiety or catastrophizing with the CPM paradigm are explained at <0.1% each. These results show that the contribution of psychological factors to inter-individual CPM differences in healthy participants is limited and that the large inter-individual variability in the CPM effect remains largely unexplained.
ABSTRACT
Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) describes the reduction in pain evoked by a test stimulus (TS) when presented together with a heterotopic painful conditioning stimulus (CS). CPM has been proposed to reflect inter-individual differences in endogenous pain modulation, which may predict susceptibility for acute and chronic pain. Here, we aimed to estimate the relative variance in CPM explained by inter-individual differences compared to age, sex, and CS physical and pain intensity. We constructed linear and mixed effect models on pooled data from 171 participants of several studies, of which 97 had repeated measures. Cross-sectional analyses showed no significant effect of age, sex or CS intensity. Repeated measures analyses revealed a significant effect of CS physical intensity (p = 0.002) but not CS pain intensity (p = 0.159). Variance decomposition showed that inter-individual differences accounted for 24% to 34% of the variance in CPM while age, sex, and CS intensity together explained <3% to 12%. In conclusion, the variance in CPM explained by inter-individual differences largely exceeds that of commonly considered factors such as age, sex and CS intensity. This may explain why predictive capability of these factors has had conflicting results and suggests that future models investigating them should account for inter-individual differences.
