MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114900140 · doi:10.1093/brain/awr265

Stimulation of the human cortex and the experience of pain: Wilder Penfield's observations revisited

2011· article· en· W2114900140 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomatosensory systemOperculum (bryozoa)Secondary somatosensory cortexNeuroscienceAnterior cingulate cortexCortex (anatomy)Context (archaeology)PsychologyPosterior parietal cortexStimulationInsular cortexParietal lobeCingulate cortexInsulaEpilepsySupplementary motor areaEpilepsy surgeryAnatomyMedicineFunctional magnetic resonance imagingCentral nervous systemBiologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thanks to the seminal work of Wilder Graves Penfield (1891-1976) at the Montreal Neurological Institute, electrical stimulation is used worldwide to localize the epileptogenic cortex and to map the functionally eloquent areas in the context of epilepsy surgery or lesion resections. In the functional map of elementary and experiential responses he described through >20 years of careful exploration of the human cortex via stimulation of the cortical surface, Penfield did not identify any 'pain cortical area'. We reinvestigated this issue by analysing subjective and videotaped behavioural responses to 4160 cortical stimulations using intracerebral electrodes implanted in all cortical lobes that were carried out over 12 years during the presurgical evaluation of epilepsy in 164 consecutive patients. Pain responses were scarce (1.4%) and concentrated in the medial part of the parietal operculum and neighbouring posterior insula where pain thresholds showed a rostrocaudal decrement. This deep cortical region remained largely inaccessible to the intraoperative stimulation of the cortical surface carried out by Penfield after resection of the parietal operculum. It differs also from primary sensory areas described by Penfield et al. in the sense that, with our stimulation paradigm, pain represented only 10% of responses. Like Penfield et al., we obtained no pain response anywhere else in the cortex, including in regions consistently activated by pain in most functional imaging studies, i.e. the first somatosensory area, the lateral part of the secondary somatosensory area, anterior and mid-cingulate gyri (mid-cingulate cortex), anterior frontal, posterior parietal and supplementary motor areas. The medial parietal operculum and posterior insula are thus the only areas where electrical stimulation is able to trigger activation of the pain cortical network and thus the experience of somatic pain.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it