Interactions between spatial summation, 2‐point discrimination and habituation of heat pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, spatial summation (SS) of two discrete noxious stimuli was found to occur at separation distances less than 10cm in the forearm. Interestingly though, with larger separation distances there is 2-point discrimination (2PD) but not SS. However, previous studies have not examined the interactions between these spatial phenomena and temporal aspects of pain. Therefore, our aims were to (1) examine the inverse relationship between SS and 2PD in the leg, and (2) assess whether SS and 2PD of pain are affected by repetitive noxious stimulation. Twenty-four subjects received multiple series of 16 repeated noxious heat stimuli (22s inter-stimulus interval) at various intensities delivered with one or two thermal probes separated by either 0.4cm or 15cm. For each configuration, subjects rated the amount of perceived pain on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (to evaluate SS) and stated the number of pain spots (to evaluate 2PD) following each stimulus. A significant SS of pain occurred only with the probe separation of 0.4cm (in which perceived pain significantly increased compared with a single probe, p<0.001) whereas 2PD occurred only at the probe separation of 15cm (p<0.001). When the stimulation temperature was fixed (but evoked different initial pain scores for different stimulation configurations), habituation occurred only with a single probe and two probes separated by 15cm. However, when the initial pain score was fixed (but the stimulus temperature varied) habituation occurred with all stimulation configurations but significantly less for two probes separated by 0.4cm. Sex was not a factor in SS and 2PD of pain, however there was greater habituation in females than males. In conclusion, SS of pain counteracts 2PD of pain and to a lesser extent, pain habituation.
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 | 0.003 | 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".