MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1782653999 · doi:10.1152/jn.2002.88.1.464

Differentiating Noxious- and Innocuous-Related Activation of Human Somatosensory Cortices Using Temporal Analysis of fMRI

2002· article· en· W1782653999 on OpenAlexaff
Jen-I Chen, Brian Ha, M. Catherine Bushnell, Gary H. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomatosensory systemStimulus (psychology)Noxious stimulusFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPsychologyNeuroscienceStimulus modalityPerceptionSecondary somatosensory cortexAudiologyNociceptionChemistryMedicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of the somatosensory cortices (SI and SII) in pain perception has long been in dispute. Human imaging studies demonstrate activation of SI and SII associated with painful stimuli, but results have been variable, and the functional relevance of any such activation is uncertain. The present study addresses this issue by testing whether the time course of somatosensory activation, evoked by painful heat and nonpainful tactile stimuli, is sufficient to discriminate temporal differences that characterize the perception of these stimulus modalities. Four normal subjects each participated in three functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) sessions, in which painful (noxious heat 45-46 degrees C) and nonpainful test stimuli (brushing at 2 Hz) were applied repeatedly (9-s stimulus duration) to the left leg in separate experiments. Activation maps were generated comparing painful to neutral heat (35 degrees C) and nonpainful brushing to rest. Directed searches were performed in SI and SII for sites reliably activated by noxious heat and brush stimuli, and stimulus-dependent regions of interest (ROI) were then constructed for each subject. The time course, per stimulus cycle, was extracted from these ROIs and compared across subjects, stimulus modalities, and cortical regions. Both innocuous brushing and noxious heat produced significant activation within contralateral SI and SII. The time course of brush-evoked responses revealed a consistent single peak of activity, approximately 10 s after the onset of the stimulus, which rapidly diminished upon stimulus withdrawal. In contrast, the response to heat pain in both SI and SII was characterized by a double-peaked time course in which the maximum response (the 2nd peak) was consistently observed approximately 17 s after the onset of the stimulus (8 s following termination of the stimulus). This prolonged period of activation paralleled the perception of increasing pain intensity that persists even after stimulus offset. On the other hand, the temporal profile of the initial minor peak in pain-related activation closely matched that of the brush-evoked activity, suggesting a possible relationship to tactile components of the thermal stimulation procedure. These data indicate that both SI and SII cortices are involved in the processing of nociceptive information and are consistent with a role for these structures in the perception of temporal aspects of pain intensity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations132
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207