The modulation of pain by attention and emotion: A dissociation of perceptual and spinal nociceptive processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotions and attention have been shown to influence the perception of pain and several psychophysiological studies have suggested an implication of descending modulatory mechanisms to explain these effects. However, the specificity of the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the emotional and attentional modulation of pain still remains unclear. In order to differentiate the supra-spinal and spinal mechanisms involved in emotional and attentional modulation of pain, we measured pain perception (self-ratings) and the RIII reflex in healthy volunteers during the presentation of pleasant, unpleasant and neutral pictures, as well as during a baseline condition with no visual distractor (Experiment 1). In a second experiment, we manipulated the emotional arousal induced by pleasant and unpleasant pictures in order to compare more directly the effects of distraction and arousal. Whereas emotional valence influenced pain and the amplitude of the RIII reflex in the same direction (negative > positive), distraction by neutral pictures reduced pain but increased the RIII reflex relative to baseline. Increased arousal further potentiated the effects of negative valence on both pain and the RIII reflex and the effects of positive emotions on pain, as previously reported. However, arousal did not potentiate the inhibitory effect of positive pictures on the RIII and seems insufficient to account for the effect of distraction on the RIII. Overall, these data provide further evidence that attention and emotion modulate pain through partially dissociable neurophysiological mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".