Differential brain activation associated with laser-evoked burning and pricking pain: An event-related fMRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important question remains as to how the brain differentially processes first (pricking) pain mediated by Adelta-nociceptors versus second (burning) pain mediated by C-nociceptors. In the present cross-over randomized, within-subjects controlled study, brain activity patterns were examined with event-related fMRI while pricking and burning pain were selectively evoked using a diode laser. Stimuli evoking equivalent pain intensities were delivered to the dorsum of the left foot. Different laser parameters were used to elicit pricking (60ms pulse duration) and burning (2.0s pulse duration) pain. Whole brain group analysis showed that several brain areas were commonly activated by pricking and burning pain, including bilateral thalamus, bilateral anterior insula, bilateral posterior parietal lobule, contralateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, ipsilateral cerebellum, and mid anterior cingulate cortex. These findings show that pricking and burning pain were associated with activity in many of the same nociceptive processing brain regions. This may be expected given that Adelta-and C-nociceptive signals converge to a great extent at the level of the dorsal horn. Other brain regions showed differential processing. Stronger activation in the pricking pain condition was found in the ipsilateral hippocampus, bilateral parahippocampal gyrus, bilateral fusiform gyrus, contralateral cerebellum and contralateral cuneus/parieto-occipital sulcus. Stronger activation in the burning pain condition was found in the ipsilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. These differential activation patterns suggest preferential importance of Adelta-fiber signals versus C-fiber signals for these specific brain regions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".