Rapid deterioration of pain sensory-discriminative information in short-term memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of pain and analgesic efficacy sometimes relies on the retrospective evaluation of pain felt in the immediate, recent or distant past, yet we have a very limited understanding of the processes involved in the encoding, maintenance and intentional retrieval of pain. We examine the properties of the short-term memory of thermal and pain sensation intensity with a delayed-discrimination task using pairs of heat pain, warm and cool stimulation in healthy volunteers. Performance decreased as a function of the inter-stimulus interval (ISI), indicating a robust deterioration of sensory information over the test period of 4-14 s. As expected, performance also decreased with smaller temperature differences (Delta-T) and shorter stimulus durations (6-2 s). The relation between performance and Delta-T was adequately described by a power function, the exponent of which increased linearly with longer ISI. Importantly, performance declined steadily with increasing ISI (from 6 to 14 s)--but only for pairs of heat pain stimuli that were relatively difficult to discriminate (Delta-T < or = 1.0 degree C; perceptual difference < or = 32/100 pain rating units) while no deterioration in performance was observed for the largest temperature difference tested (Delta T = 1.5 degrees C; perceptual difference of 50 units). These results are consistent with the possibility that short-term memory for pain and temperature sensation intensity relies on a transient analog representation that is quickly degraded and transformed into a more resistant but less precise categorical format. This implies that retrospective pain ratings obtained even after very short delays may be rather inaccurate but relatively reliable.
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 | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".