Pain additivity, diffuse noxious inhibitory controls, and attention: A functional measurement analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study utilized the methodology of Functional Measurement theory to investigate the additivity of painful and non-painful thermally induced experiences at one body site with those produced by brief noxious and innocuous electrical stimuli at another. Forty healthy young subjects were tested, using a Peltier thermode to induce tonic pain and an electrocutaneous stimulator for presenting phasic pain, under conditions of either full attention or visual/cognitive distraction (counting numerous light signals) in order to evaluate whether the summed effects are attributable to refocused attention. Six levels of intensity were combined in a factorial design for both tonic and phasic pain. Subjects indicated the overall strength of their dual perception on a visual analog scale. Stimuli showed complex patterns of interaction. Two stimuli were generally rated as greater than one, but the summation was far from additive and greatly influenced by the intensity of the stronger stimulus, suggesting inhibitory action. In general, tonic heat pain strongly affected the perception of phasic electrocutaneous pain whereas the reverse was only partly true. Distraction had a very small effect, suggesting that the "pain inhibits pain" phenomenon attributable to diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC) is not due to attentional processes. Our data also relate to issues regarding spatial summation across dermatomes and to adaptation level effects in pain, in which a strong painful experience serves as an anchor or comparison point by which others are judged. The psychophysical findings provide a perceptual foundation for clinical phenomena in which patients face with comorbid pain disorders.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".