Remembering the dynamic changes in pain intensity and unpleasantness: A psychophysical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the short-term memory of dynamic changes in acute pain using psychophysical methods. Pain intensity or unpleasantness induced by painful contact-heat stimuli of 8, 9, or 10s was rated continuously during the stimulus or after a 14-s delay using an electronic visual analog scale in 10 healthy volunteers. Because the continuous visual analog scale time courses contained large amounts of redundant information, a principal component analysis was applied to characterize the main features inherent to both the concurrent rating and retrospective evaluations. Three components explained about 90% of the total variance across all trials and subjects, with the first component reflecting the global perceptual profile, and the second and third components explaining finer perceptual aspects (eg, changes in slope at onset and offset and shifts in peak latency). We postulate that these 3 principal components may provide some information about the structure of the mental representations of what one perceives, stores, and remembers during the course of few seconds. Analysis performed on the components confirmed significant memory distortions and revealed that the discriminative information about pain dimensions in concurrent ratings was partly or completely lost in retrospective ratings. Importantly, our results highlight individual differences affecting these memory processes. These results provide further evidence of the important transformations underlying the processing of pain in explicit memory and raise fundamental questions about the conversion of dynamic nociceptive signals into a mental representation of pain in perception and memory.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".