Cerebral and Cerebrospinal Processes Underlying Counterirritation Analgesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain is a complex experience involving extensive interactions between brain and spinal cord processes. Various interventions that modulate pain, such as the application of a competing noxious stimulus (counterirritation), are thought to involve cerebrospinal regulation through diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNICs). However, no study has yet examined the relation between brain and spinal cord activity during counterirritation analgesia in humans. This fMRI study investigates brain responses to phasic painful electrical stimulation administered to the sural nerve to evoke a spinal nociceptive response (RIII reflex) before, during and after counterirritation induced by the immersion of the left contralateral foot in cold water. Responses are compared with a control condition without counterirritation. As expected, counterirritation produced robust pain inhibition with residual analgesia persisting during the recovery period. In contrast, RIII reflex amplitude was significantly decreased by counterirritation only in a subset of subjects. Modulatory effects of counterirritation on pain perception and spinal nociception were paralleled by decreased shock-evoked activity in pain-related areas. Individual changes in shock-evoked brain activity were specifically related to analgesia in primary somatosensory cortex (SI), anterior cingulate cortex and amygdala, and to RIII modulation in supplementary motor area and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). Moreover, sustained activation induced by the counterirritation stimulus in the OFC predicted shock-pain decrease while sustained activity in SI and the periaqueductal gray matter predicted RIII modulation. These results provide evidence for the implication of at least two partly separable neural mechanisms underlying the effects of counterirritation on pain and spinal nociception in humans.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".