Expectations modulate long‐term heat pain habituation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habituation to pain was shown to be a complex mechanism involving the pain encoding regions and the antinociceptive system in the brain. Pain perception can be modulated by cognitive factors; however it is unclear whether cognitive factors also influence habituation to pain. We used an established experimental design with repetitive moderate painful heat stimulation over eight consecutive days. Thirty-seven healthy subjects were recruited and assigned to four different groups: The first group (n=10) was instructed that pain perception over time will habituate; the second group (n=9) that pain will increase; the third group (n=8) was instructed that pain will remain stable over the 8 days of pain stimulation and the fourth group (n=10) was not given any specific information and served as a control group. We found that the control group habituated as described before. However, it was abolished in the second (sensitize) and third (stable) group, but was very strongly demonstrated in the first (habituation) group. In this group, habituation tended to be increased as compared to the control group. In conclusion, our findings highlight the importance of context information in pain studies and contribute to our knowledge about pain processing and behaviour.
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 | 0.004 | 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".