Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The higher order processes involved in self-regulation are generally thought to depend on cognitive (attentional/executive) functions with limited resources. Experimental studies further show that exerting self-control in a first task results in decreased performance in other following self-control tasks, which may be interpreted as the consequence of either effective or perceived resource depletion outlasting the first task. Given that higher order cognitive/attentional processes are also considered to be involved in pain modulatory mechanisms, we tested the idea that pain could be influenced by prior mobilization of cognitive resources. METHODS: The present study investigated the consequences of performing a cognitively demanding task on subsequent pain (ratings) and spinal nociceptive responses (nociceptive flexion reflex, NFR) elicited by noxious electrical stimulations in healthy volunteers. Participants received four noxious stimulations immediately after each of six successive blocks (2 min each) of a numerical Stroop task in a neutral condition (low cognitive demand) and six successive blocks in an interference condition (high cognitive demand). RESULTS: Results revealed that pain was rated higher following the condition requiring higher cognitive control. A similar effect was observed on the NFR. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that pain regulation mechanisms including the descending pain modulatory system may be less efficient after the performance of tasks requiring high cognitive control resulting in stronger pain experience.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".