Memory Traces of Pain in Human Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinct brain regions process sensory discriminative and affective components of pain; however, the role of these areas in pain memory is unknown. This event-related study investigated the short-term memory for sensory features of cutaneous heat pain using a delayed-discrimination paradigm and functional magnetic resonance imaging. During memory trials, subjects discriminated the location and intensity of two painful stimuli presented sequentially to the right hand. Control trials comprised the same sequence of stimuli and motor responses but required no delayed discrimination. Stimulus-evoked activity for memory and control trials was generally indistinguishable within the network of regions normally responsive to experimental pain [i.e., the primary somatosensory cortex/posterior parietal cortex (SI/PPC), secondary somatosensory cortex (SII), and anterior insular cortex (aIC)]; these data confirm the painful nature of the stimuli and the similar levels of attention and stimulus encoding engaged during the two randomly presented trial types. Memory-specific activity, assessed by contrasting the interstimulus interval in memory and control trials, was observed in SI/PPC and aIC but not in SII. We propose that SI/PPC plays a role in the short-term retention of spatial and intensity aspects of noxious stimuli and that aIC activation during memory trials is consistent with the integration of sensory and cognitive (attention, awareness, salience, and memory) components of pain perception. The absence of memory-specific anterior cingulate cortex activation, generally associated with pain unpleasantness, suggests that remembering affective aspects of the stimuli was not required during performance of the sensory delayed-discrimination task.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".