Pain increases motivational drive to obtain reward, but does not affect associated hedonic responses: A behavioural study in healthy volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain and reward have been suggested to interact, and some evidence is provided by a rodent study showing that acutely injured animals are more motivated to reach a food reward while they do not increase food consumption, pointing at unaltered reward liking. Since no data exist in humans, we conducted a psychophysical experiment to test the effects of experimentally induced tonic pain on (1) the motivation to receive reward and (2) hedonic responses when being rewarded. METHODS: Forty healthy participants underwent two experimental sessions: in one, painful heat stimulation was continuously applied while participants played a monetary reward task; in the other, participants experienced non-painful warm stimulation while playing the task. In the task, participants needed to react quickly enough to a target cue to win the money associated with the particular trial ($0.04, $1 or $4). Reaction time to the target cue served as measure of motivation. Ratings after each trial on how much the participant liked the trial's outcome served as a measure of hedonic responses. RESULTS: Pain increased the motivation to obtain reward when the incentive was high, indexed by decreased reaction times (repeated-measures analysis of variance, interaction pain × incentive; p = 0.009). In contrast to motivational drive, hedonic ratings of the rewarding stimuli were not influenced by pain. CONCLUSION: Similar to existing rodent data, our results suggest a pain-induced mismatch of increased motivational drive with a lack of increased hedonic responses. This mismatch is discussed as perhaps reflecting a failed coping attempt, which is potentially relevant for chronic pain patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".