Differentiation of Visceral and Cutaneous Pain in the Human Brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread convergence of information from visceral, cutaneous, and muscle tissues onto CNS neurons invites the question of how to identify pain as being from the viscera. Despite referral of visceral pain to cutaneous areas, individuals regularly distinguish cutaneous and visceral pain and commonly have contrasting behavioral reactions to each. Our study addresses this dilemma by directly comparing human neural processing of intensity-equated visceral and cutaneous pain. Seven subjects underwent fMRI scanning during visceral and cutaneous pain produced by balloon distention of the distal esophagus and contact heat on the midline chest. Stimulus intensities producing nonpainful and painful sensations, interleaved with rest periods, were presented in each functional run. Analyses compared painful to nonpainful conditions. A similar neural network, including secondary somatosensory and parietal cortices, thalamus, basal ganglia, and cerebellum, was activated by visceral and cutaneous painful stimuli. However, cutaneous pain evoked higher activation bilaterally in the anterior insular cortex. Further, cutaneous but not esophageal pain activated ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, despite higher affective scores for visceral pain. Visceral but not cutaneous pain activated bilateral inferior primary somatosensory cortex, bilateral primary motor cortex, and a more anterior locus within anterior cingulate cortex. Our results reveal a common cortical network subserving cutaneous and visceral pain that could underlie similarities in the pain experience. However, we also observed differential activation patterns within insular, primary somatosensory, motor, and prefrontal cortices that may account for the ability to distinguish visceral and cutaneous pain as well as the differential emotional, autonomic and motor responses associated with these different sensations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".