Effect of local versus remote tonic heat pain during training on acquisition and retention of a finger-tapping sequence task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although pain is present in a large proportion of patients receiving rehabilitation, its impact on motor learning is still unclear, especially in the case of neuropathic pain that is not tightly linked to specific movements. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of local and remote tonic cutaneous heat pain applied during training on motor learning of a finger-tapping sequence task. Forty-five healthy participants, randomized to the control, local pain or remote pain groups, were trained to perform an explicit finger motor sequence of five items as fast as possible. During the 10 training blocks (30 s each), local pain and remote pain groups received a heat pain stimulus on the wrist or leg, respectively. Performance was tested in the absence of pain in all groups before (baseline), immediately after (post-immediate), 60 min after (post-60 min) and 24 h after training (post-24 h) to assess both acquisition and next-day retention. Speed increased over time from baseline to post-24 h (p < 0.001), without any significant effect of group (p = 0.804) or time × group interaction (p = 0.385), indicating that the acquisition and retention were not affected by the presence of pain during training. No changes were observed on error rates, which were very low even at baseline. These results with experimental heat pain suggest that the ability to relearn finger sequence should not be affected by concomitant neuropathic pain in neurorehabilitation. However, these results need to be validated in the context of chronic pain, by including pain as a co-variable in motor rehabilitation trials.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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".