The role of dopamine in the perceptual modulation of nociceptive stimuli by monetary wins or losses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dopamine has been suggested to have direct antinociceptive effects. However, effects on the motivation to endure or to avoid nociceptive stimulation would be more in line with dopamine's well-established role in the motivation to obtain reward. Thus, dopamine might either inhibit or facilitate the perception of nociceptive stimuli to bias an organism towards endurance or avoidance depending on the relative importance of the nociceptive input. To test this hypothesis, we conducted two psychophysical experiments in human volunteers. In Experiment 1, the respective antinociceptive and pro-nociceptive effects of monetary wins and losses were assessed by administering thermal stimuli (three intensities, within-subject factor) while participants simultaneously won, lost, or neither won nor lost (neutral condition) money (within-subject factor) in a wheel-of-fortune task. In Experiment 2, we tested the effect of low-dose sulpiride (a centrally-acting D2-receptor antagonist increasing the synaptic availability of dopamine via predominant pre-synaptic blockade) on the same task as in Experiment 1 using a placebo-controlled, cross-over design. Monetary wins decreased and losses enhanced the perception of nociceptive stimuli, which was highly reproducible. Sulpiride augmented perceptual modulation by monetary outcomes. This augmentation was driven by increased effects of monetary losses on the perception of nociceptive stimuli. The perception of nociceptive stimuli in the absence of monetary wins and losses was not affected by sulpiride. Based on these findings, we propose a new role of dopamine in the context of nociception: biasing the organism towards a decision in situations with conflicting motivations, depending on the relative importance of the nociceptive input.
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) | 0.001 | 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".