Effects of insular stimulation on thermal nociception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electrical stimulation used for brain mapping in the postero-superior insula can evoke pain. The effects of prolonged high frequency insular stimulation on pain thresholds are unknown. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Prolonged high frequency insular stimulation, by virtue of its inhibitory properties on networks, could decrease thermal nociception. METHODS: Epileptic subjects had electrodes implanted in the insular cortex for the purpose of epileptic focus resection. Thermal and pressure nociceptive thresholds were tested bilaterally on the forearm on two consecutive days. Randomly assigned double-blind high frequency (150 Hz) insular stimulation took place for 10 min before pain testing either on the first day or on the second day. RESULTS: Six subjects (three females; mean age of 35 years) were included. Insular stimulation increased heat pain threshold on the ipsilateral (p = 0.003; n = 6) and contralateral sides (p = 0.047; n = 6). Differences in cold pain threshold did not reach statistical significance (ipsilateral: p = 0.341, contralateral: p = 0.143; n = 6), but one subject had a profound decrease in both heat and cold pain responses. Pressure pain threshold was not modified by insular stimulation (ipsilateral: p = 0.1123; contralateral: p = 0.1192; n = 6). Two of the three subjects who had a postero-superior operculo-insulectomy developed central pain with contralateral thermal nociceptive deficit. CONCLUSIONS: High frequency inhibitory postero-superior insular stimulation may have the potential to decrease thermal nociception. Together with previous studies, our data support the notion that the integrity of this brain region is necessary for thermal but not pressure nociceptive processing.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".