Pain Perception Is Increased in Congenital but Not Late Onset Blindness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is now ample evidence that blind individuals outperform sighted individuals in various tasks involving the non-visual senses. In line with these results, we recently showed that visual deprivation from birth leads to an increased sensitivity to pain. As many studies have shown that congenitally and late blind individuals show differences in their degree of compensatory plasticity, we here address the question whether late blind individuals also show hypersensitivity to nociceptive stimulation. We therefore compared pain thresholds and responses to supra-threshold nociceptive stimuli in congenitally blind, late blind and normally sighted volunteers. Participants also filled in questionnaires measuring attention and anxiety towards pain in everyday life. Results show that late blind participants have pain thresholds and ratings of supra-threshold heat nociceptive stimuli similar to the normally sighted, whereas congenitally blind participants are hypersensitive to nociceptive thermal stimuli. Furthermore, results of the pain questionnaires did not allow to discriminate late blind from normal sighted participants, whereas congenitally blind individuals had a different pattern of responses. Taken together, these results suggest that enhanced sensitivity to pain following visual deprivation is likely due to neuroplastic changes related to the early loss of vision.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".