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

Subjective ratings for the inhibition (I), baseline (B) and facilitation (F) conditions. A) Mean and SE of pain intensity ratings (top panel) and corresponding inhibition and facilitation modulatory index for each participant (bottom panel). The index corresponds to the difference of each modulation condition minus baseline (I–B and F–B) in % modulation. B) Mean and SE of pain unpleasantness ratings (top panel) and corresponding inhibition and facilitation modulatory index for each participant (bottom panel). The index corresponds to the difference of each modulation condition minus baseline (I–B and F–B) in percentage. C) Mean and SE of the perceived efficacy in pain modulation (top panel) and Pearson's correlations between the perceived efficacy under inhibition and facilitation (r = .95; bottom panel).
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

f0010: Subjective ratings for the inhibition (I), baseline (B) and facilitation (F) conditions. A) Mean and SE of pain intensity ratings (top panel) and corresponding inhibition and facilitation modulatory index for each participant (bottom panel). The index corresponds to the difference of each modulation condition minus baseline (I–B and F–B) in % modulation. B) Mean and SE of pain unpleasantness ratings (top panel) and corresponding inhibition and facilitation modulatory index for each participant (bottom panel). The index corresponds to the difference of each modulation condition minus baseline (I–B and F–B) in percentage. C) Mean and SE of the perceived efficacy in pain modulation (top panel) and Pearson's correlations between the perceived efficacy under inhibition and facilitation (r = .95; bottom panel).

Mentions: Participants reported significant differences in the perceived pain intensity and unpleasantness experience according to the given instruction. Compared to baseline, inhibition and facilitation blocks were associated with significantly decreased or increased intensity and unpleasantness ratings, respectively. The instruction main effect for subjective intensity ratings corresponded to F(2,40) = 22.29, partial ƞ2 = 0.52, p < .001 (Fig. 2A). Further, the instruction main effect for subjective unpleasantness ratings was F(2,40) = 32.61, partial ƞ2 = 0.62, p < .001 (Fig. 2B). To clarify the extent to which participants reported effective modulation of intensity and unpleasantness, we calculated four modulatory indices corresponding to the difference between the ratings under each instruction condition minus the corresponding rating at baseline. The four resulting indices were ΔI Intensity, ΔF Intensity, ΔI Unpleasantness, ΔF Unpleasantness. The intensity modulation indexes showed considerable variability across participants, ranging from no modulation at all to decrements of 27% (mean ± SE = 6.92 ± 1.93%) and increments of 21% (mean ± SE = 7.52 ± 1.62%). Similarly, the unpleasantness modulation indexes varied from no modulation at all to decrements of 33% (mean ± SE = 6.1 ± 1.71%) and increments of 25% in the ratings (mean ± SE = 9.64 ± 1.74%). The inhibition vs. facilitation modulation indexes did not differ for both the intensity (t(20) = 1.03, p = n.s.) and the unpleasantness ratings (t(20) = − 1.39, p = n.s.). The mean value of intensity and unpleasantness modulation for each participant is represented in Figs. 2A and B.


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

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

Subjective ratings for the inhibition (I), baseline (B) and facilitation (F) conditions. A) Mean and SE of pain intensity ratings (top panel) and corresponding inhibition and facilitation modulatory index for each participant (bottom panel). The index corresponds to the difference of each modulation condition minus baseline (I–B and F–B) in % modulation. B) Mean and SE of pain unpleasantness ratings (top panel) and corresponding inhibition and facilitation modulatory index for each participant (bottom panel). The index corresponds to the difference of each modulation condition minus baseline (I–B and F–B) in percentage. C) Mean and SE of the perceived efficacy in pain modulation (top panel) and Pearson's correlations between the perceived efficacy under inhibition and facilitation (r = .95; bottom panel).
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

f0010: Subjective ratings for the inhibition (I), baseline (B) and facilitation (F) conditions. A) Mean and SE of pain intensity ratings (top panel) and corresponding inhibition and facilitation modulatory index for each participant (bottom panel). The index corresponds to the difference of each modulation condition minus baseline (I–B and F–B) in % modulation. B) Mean and SE of pain unpleasantness ratings (top panel) and corresponding inhibition and facilitation modulatory index for each participant (bottom panel). The index corresponds to the difference of each modulation condition minus baseline (I–B and F–B) in percentage. C) Mean and SE of the perceived efficacy in pain modulation (top panel) and Pearson's correlations between the perceived efficacy under inhibition and facilitation (r = .95; bottom panel).
Mentions: Participants reported significant differences in the perceived pain intensity and unpleasantness experience according to the given instruction. Compared to baseline, inhibition and facilitation blocks were associated with significantly decreased or increased intensity and unpleasantness ratings, respectively. The instruction main effect for subjective intensity ratings corresponded to F(2,40) = 22.29, partial ƞ2 = 0.52, p < .001 (Fig. 2A). Further, the instruction main effect for subjective unpleasantness ratings was F(2,40) = 32.61, partial ƞ2 = 0.62, p < .001 (Fig. 2B). To clarify the extent to which participants reported effective modulation of intensity and unpleasantness, we calculated four modulatory indices corresponding to the difference between the ratings under each instruction condition minus the corresponding rating at baseline. The four resulting indices were ΔI Intensity, ΔF Intensity, ΔI Unpleasantness, ΔF Unpleasantness. The intensity modulation indexes showed considerable variability across participants, ranging from no modulation at all to decrements of 27% (mean ± SE = 6.92 ± 1.93%) and increments of 21% (mean ± SE = 7.52 ± 1.62%). Similarly, the unpleasantness modulation indexes varied from no modulation at all to decrements of 33% (mean ± SE = 6.1 ± 1.71%) and increments of 25% in the ratings (mean ± SE = 9.64 ± 1.74%). The inhibition vs. facilitation modulation indexes did not differ for both the intensity (t(20) = 1.03, p = n.s.) and the unpleasantness ratings (t(20) = − 1.39, p = n.s.). The mean value of intensity and unpleasantness modulation for each participant is represented in Figs. 2A and B.

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