Limits...
Neurocognitive evidence for mental imagery-driven hypoalgesic and hyperalgesic pain regulation.

Fardo F, Allen M, Jegindø EM, Angrilli A, Roepstorff A - Neuroimage (2015)

Bottom Line: Within this time window, source localization associated inhibiting vs. facilitating pain with neural activity in cortical regions involved in cognitive inhibitory control and in the retrieval of semantic information (i.e., right inferior frontal and temporal regions).In contrast, the main sources of neural activity associated with facilitating vs. inhibiting pain were identified in cortical regions typically implicated in salience processing and emotion regulation (i.e., left insular, inferior-middle frontal, supplementary motor and precentral regions).Overall, these findings suggest that the content of a mental image directly alters pain-related decision and evaluative processing to flexibly produce hypoalgesic and hyperalgesic outcomes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: MINDLab, Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: francesca.fardo@gmail.com.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

A) Timeline of a single block. Each block started with the presentation of a verbal instruction (1) indicating the upcoming imagery condition. Participants were instructed to use mental images to inhibit, facilitate or experience the stimulation without modulation. The suggested images corresponded to a gloved forearm (inhibition), a wounded forearm (facilitation), or the skin of the forearm (baseline). After 15 s from the instruction onset, 12 (6 high-intensity, 6 low-intensity) stimuli were delivered in a random order. Participants had to judge each stimulus as either “painful” (P) or “non-painful” (N) by pressing a button on the keyboard (2). Following stimulation, participants recalled the worst felt pain to rate their perceived intensity, unpleasantness and efficacy of pain control (3). B) Timeline of stimulation and pain judgment task. Each stimulus lasted for 5 ms. Participants had 1000 ms to judge each stimulus as either painful or non-painful, by pressing a button on the keyboard. After the response, the inter-trial interval varied between 1200 and 1800 ms.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4594156&req=5

f0005: A) Timeline of a single block. Each block started with the presentation of a verbal instruction (1) indicating the upcoming imagery condition. Participants were instructed to use mental images to inhibit, facilitate or experience the stimulation without modulation. The suggested images corresponded to a gloved forearm (inhibition), a wounded forearm (facilitation), or the skin of the forearm (baseline). After 15 s from the instruction onset, 12 (6 high-intensity, 6 low-intensity) stimuli were delivered in a random order. Participants had to judge each stimulus as either “painful” (P) or “non-painful” (N) by pressing a button on the keyboard (2). Following stimulation, participants recalled the worst felt pain to rate their perceived intensity, unpleasantness and efficacy of pain control (3). B) Timeline of stimulation and pain judgment task. Each stimulus lasted for 5 ms. Participants had 1000 ms to judge each stimulus as either painful or non-painful, by pressing a button on the keyboard. After the response, the inter-trial interval varied between 1200 and 1800 ms.

Mentions: Participants were asked to (1) modulate the upcoming sensory stimulation through script-driven mental imagery, (2) identify each stimulus as either painful or non-painful (pain judgment task), and (3) evaluate their pain experience (pain intensity, pain unpleasantness, and efficacy ratings), see Fig. 1. At the beginning of each block of trials, participants were required to imagine the content of a verbal script and to use the suggested mental images to either inhibit or facilitate the triggered pain responses or to experience pain without modulation (baseline). In the inhibition and facilitation conditions, instructions suggested that participants generate and maintain the mental image of either a glove or a wound on the right forearm to attenuate or to exacerbate pain sensations, respectively. In the baseline condition, instructions were to simply imagine the skin of the right forearm, without any pain modulation. The instruction for inhibition was chosen according to a previous study (De Pascalis et al., 1999), whereas the instruction for facilitation was specifically designed to mirror the inhibition condition, altering the content of the image (wound instead of a glove) and the directionality of the modulation (amplification instead of attenuation). Within each block of trials, participants were required to judge each stimulus as either painful or non-painful as quickly and accurately as possible by pressing two possible keyboard buttons, counterbalanced across participants (Fig. 1). Finally, at the end of each block of trials, participants were invited to rate the worst pain intensity and unpleasantness felt in the previous block and to judge their ability to influence the triggered responses accordingly to the given instruction (efficacy ratings; Fig. 1).


Neurocognitive evidence for mental imagery-driven hypoalgesic and hyperalgesic pain regulation.

Fardo F, Allen M, Jegindø EM, Angrilli A, Roepstorff A - Neuroimage (2015)

A) Timeline of a single block. Each block started with the presentation of a verbal instruction (1) indicating the upcoming imagery condition. Participants were instructed to use mental images to inhibit, facilitate or experience the stimulation without modulation. The suggested images corresponded to a gloved forearm (inhibition), a wounded forearm (facilitation), or the skin of the forearm (baseline). After 15 s from the instruction onset, 12 (6 high-intensity, 6 low-intensity) stimuli were delivered in a random order. Participants had to judge each stimulus as either “painful” (P) or “non-painful” (N) by pressing a button on the keyboard (2). Following stimulation, participants recalled the worst felt pain to rate their perceived intensity, unpleasantness and efficacy of pain control (3). B) Timeline of stimulation and pain judgment task. Each stimulus lasted for 5 ms. Participants had 1000 ms to judge each stimulus as either painful or non-painful, by pressing a button on the keyboard. After the response, the inter-trial interval varied between 1200 and 1800 ms.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4594156&req=5

f0005: A) Timeline of a single block. Each block started with the presentation of a verbal instruction (1) indicating the upcoming imagery condition. Participants were instructed to use mental images to inhibit, facilitate or experience the stimulation without modulation. The suggested images corresponded to a gloved forearm (inhibition), a wounded forearm (facilitation), or the skin of the forearm (baseline). After 15 s from the instruction onset, 12 (6 high-intensity, 6 low-intensity) stimuli were delivered in a random order. Participants had to judge each stimulus as either “painful” (P) or “non-painful” (N) by pressing a button on the keyboard (2). Following stimulation, participants recalled the worst felt pain to rate their perceived intensity, unpleasantness and efficacy of pain control (3). B) Timeline of stimulation and pain judgment task. Each stimulus lasted for 5 ms. Participants had 1000 ms to judge each stimulus as either painful or non-painful, by pressing a button on the keyboard. After the response, the inter-trial interval varied between 1200 and 1800 ms.
Mentions: Participants were asked to (1) modulate the upcoming sensory stimulation through script-driven mental imagery, (2) identify each stimulus as either painful or non-painful (pain judgment task), and (3) evaluate their pain experience (pain intensity, pain unpleasantness, and efficacy ratings), see Fig. 1. At the beginning of each block of trials, participants were required to imagine the content of a verbal script and to use the suggested mental images to either inhibit or facilitate the triggered pain responses or to experience pain without modulation (baseline). In the inhibition and facilitation conditions, instructions suggested that participants generate and maintain the mental image of either a glove or a wound on the right forearm to attenuate or to exacerbate pain sensations, respectively. In the baseline condition, instructions were to simply imagine the skin of the right forearm, without any pain modulation. The instruction for inhibition was chosen according to a previous study (De Pascalis et al., 1999), whereas the instruction for facilitation was specifically designed to mirror the inhibition condition, altering the content of the image (wound instead of a glove) and the directionality of the modulation (amplification instead of attenuation). Within each block of trials, participants were required to judge each stimulus as either painful or non-painful as quickly and accurately as possible by pressing two possible keyboard buttons, counterbalanced across participants (Fig. 1). Finally, at the end of each block of trials, participants were invited to rate the worst pain intensity and unpleasantness felt in the previous block and to judge their ability to influence the triggered responses accordingly to the given instruction (efficacy ratings; Fig. 1).

Bottom Line: Within this time window, source localization associated inhibiting vs. facilitating pain with neural activity in cortical regions involved in cognitive inhibitory control and in the retrieval of semantic information (i.e., right inferior frontal and temporal regions).In contrast, the main sources of neural activity associated with facilitating vs. inhibiting pain were identified in cortical regions typically implicated in salience processing and emotion regulation (i.e., left insular, inferior-middle frontal, supplementary motor and precentral regions).Overall, these findings suggest that the content of a mental image directly alters pain-related decision and evaluative processing to flexibly produce hypoalgesic and hyperalgesic outcomes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: MINDLab, Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: francesca.fardo@gmail.com.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus