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

Temporal, spatial and effect size information associated with the instruction main effect at the scalp and source level. A) Top-left: grand-mean ERPs, time locked to the stimulation, separately for painful (full line) and non-painful stimuli (dotted line) and for instruction (inhibition, I; baseline, B; facilitation, F). Time scale is from − 100 to 500 ms. Negativity is displayed upward. The gray area represents the temporal extent of the significant instruction main effect at the cluster level (pFWE < .05 cluster-level; pUNC < .001 peak-level). The significant difference, corresponding to increased N2 amplitudes for inhibition vs. facilitation between 122 and 180 ms, is overlaid on a representative channel, i.e., F2. Top-right: Statistical parametric maps overlaid over the glass brain showing the spatial extent of the significant effect at 160 ms (i.e., when maximally significant). Topographical maps, as well as contrast estimates and 90% confidence intervals are depicted for the maximally significant effects at 160 ms for high and low intensity stimuli and for each instruction (inhibition, I; baseline, B; facilitation, F). AL = anterior left; PR = posterior right. B) Differences in source strength between inhibition vs. facilitation (middle panel) and facilitation vs. inhibition (bottom panel), as well as contrast estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the maximally significant effects in right inferior frontal gyrus (coordinates = [42, 32, 16]) and left insular cortex (coordinates = [− 38, 6, 10]), respectively. The source maps are thresholded at pUNC < .001 for visualization.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

f0025: Temporal, spatial and effect size information associated with the instruction main effect at the scalp and source level. A) Top-left: grand-mean ERPs, time locked to the stimulation, separately for painful (full line) and non-painful stimuli (dotted line) and for instruction (inhibition, I; baseline, B; facilitation, F). Time scale is from − 100 to 500 ms. Negativity is displayed upward. The gray area represents the temporal extent of the significant instruction main effect at the cluster level (pFWE < .05 cluster-level; pUNC < .001 peak-level). The significant difference, corresponding to increased N2 amplitudes for inhibition vs. facilitation between 122 and 180 ms, is overlaid on a representative channel, i.e., F2. Top-right: Statistical parametric maps overlaid over the glass brain showing the spatial extent of the significant effect at 160 ms (i.e., when maximally significant). Topographical maps, as well as contrast estimates and 90% confidence intervals are depicted for the maximally significant effects at 160 ms for high and low intensity stimuli and for each instruction (inhibition, I; baseline, B; facilitation, F). AL = anterior left; PR = posterior right. B) Differences in source strength between inhibition vs. facilitation (middle panel) and facilitation vs. inhibition (bottom panel), as well as contrast estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the maximally significant effects in right inferior frontal gyrus (coordinates = [42, 32, 16]) and left insular cortex (coordinates = [− 38, 6, 10]), respectively. The source maps are thresholded at pUNC < .001 for visualization.

Mentions: To evaluate whether ERP amplitudes are specifically modulated by the content of the mental imagery, we compared inhibition vs. facilitation conditions with two unidirectional t contrasts (I > F and I < F). No significant intensity × instruction interaction was found. However, a significant instruction main effect was observed at 122–180 ms for the contrast I < F over an anterior right cluster (Fig. 5 and Table 2). The stimuli elicited greater negative amplitudes under inhibition compared to facilitation, regardless of stimulus intensity (peak-level Tmax = 5.00; cluster-level pFWE < .001; Fig. 5 and Table 2). We thus performed planned follow-up contrasts to determine whether either condition diverged from baseline; i.e., I < B and B < F. In the inhibition vs. baseline follow-up contrast, a significant instruction effects survived cluster correction at 156–168 ms (peak-level Tmax = 4.21; cluster-level pFWE = .003; Fig. 5 and Table 2). Finally, in the facilitation vs. baseline follow-up no significant intensity by instruction interaction or instruction main effect survived the cluster correction. However, cluster-level uncorrected results revealed an instruction main effect at 160–162 ms (peak-level Tmax = 3.47; cluster-level pFWE = n.s.).


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

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

Temporal, spatial and effect size information associated with the instruction main effect at the scalp and source level. A) Top-left: grand-mean ERPs, time locked to the stimulation, separately for painful (full line) and non-painful stimuli (dotted line) and for instruction (inhibition, I; baseline, B; facilitation, F). Time scale is from − 100 to 500 ms. Negativity is displayed upward. The gray area represents the temporal extent of the significant instruction main effect at the cluster level (pFWE < .05 cluster-level; pUNC < .001 peak-level). The significant difference, corresponding to increased N2 amplitudes for inhibition vs. facilitation between 122 and 180 ms, is overlaid on a representative channel, i.e., F2. Top-right: Statistical parametric maps overlaid over the glass brain showing the spatial extent of the significant effect at 160 ms (i.e., when maximally significant). Topographical maps, as well as contrast estimates and 90% confidence intervals are depicted for the maximally significant effects at 160 ms for high and low intensity stimuli and for each instruction (inhibition, I; baseline, B; facilitation, F). AL = anterior left; PR = posterior right. B) Differences in source strength between inhibition vs. facilitation (middle panel) and facilitation vs. inhibition (bottom panel), as well as contrast estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the maximally significant effects in right inferior frontal gyrus (coordinates = [42, 32, 16]) and left insular cortex (coordinates = [− 38, 6, 10]), respectively. The source maps are thresholded at pUNC < .001 for visualization.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

f0025: Temporal, spatial and effect size information associated with the instruction main effect at the scalp and source level. A) Top-left: grand-mean ERPs, time locked to the stimulation, separately for painful (full line) and non-painful stimuli (dotted line) and for instruction (inhibition, I; baseline, B; facilitation, F). Time scale is from − 100 to 500 ms. Negativity is displayed upward. The gray area represents the temporal extent of the significant instruction main effect at the cluster level (pFWE < .05 cluster-level; pUNC < .001 peak-level). The significant difference, corresponding to increased N2 amplitudes for inhibition vs. facilitation between 122 and 180 ms, is overlaid on a representative channel, i.e., F2. Top-right: Statistical parametric maps overlaid over the glass brain showing the spatial extent of the significant effect at 160 ms (i.e., when maximally significant). Topographical maps, as well as contrast estimates and 90% confidence intervals are depicted for the maximally significant effects at 160 ms for high and low intensity stimuli and for each instruction (inhibition, I; baseline, B; facilitation, F). AL = anterior left; PR = posterior right. B) Differences in source strength between inhibition vs. facilitation (middle panel) and facilitation vs. inhibition (bottom panel), as well as contrast estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the maximally significant effects in right inferior frontal gyrus (coordinates = [42, 32, 16]) and left insular cortex (coordinates = [− 38, 6, 10]), respectively. The source maps are thresholded at pUNC < .001 for visualization.
Mentions: To evaluate whether ERP amplitudes are specifically modulated by the content of the mental imagery, we compared inhibition vs. facilitation conditions with two unidirectional t contrasts (I > F and I < F). No significant intensity × instruction interaction was found. However, a significant instruction main effect was observed at 122–180 ms for the contrast I < F over an anterior right cluster (Fig. 5 and Table 2). The stimuli elicited greater negative amplitudes under inhibition compared to facilitation, regardless of stimulus intensity (peak-level Tmax = 5.00; cluster-level pFWE < .001; Fig. 5 and Table 2). We thus performed planned follow-up contrasts to determine whether either condition diverged from baseline; i.e., I < B and B < F. In the inhibition vs. baseline follow-up contrast, a significant instruction effects survived cluster correction at 156–168 ms (peak-level Tmax = 4.21; cluster-level pFWE = .003; Fig. 5 and Table 2). Finally, in the facilitation vs. baseline follow-up no significant intensity by instruction interaction or instruction main effect survived the cluster correction. However, cluster-level uncorrected results revealed an instruction main effect at 160–162 ms (peak-level Tmax = 3.47; cluster-level pFWE = n.s.).

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