Brain processing of the temporal dimension of acute pain in short-term memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamics of noxious sensation shapes pain perception, yet the memory of the temporal dimension of pain remains almost completely unexplored. Here, brain activity during the memory of pain duration was contrasted with that associated with the memory of pain intensity using functional magnetic resonance imaging and a delayed reproduction task. Participants encoded, maintained during a short delay, and reproduced (1) the "duration" of pain (ie, onset-to-offset), (2) the "dynamics" of pain (ie, evolution of pain over time), or (3) the intensity of pain (ie, control with no explicit temporal processing required). Results show that the inferior frontal gyrus/insula and adjacent striatal structures as well as the supramarginal and middle temporal gyri are activated in the duration task compared to the control intensity task. Specific examination of the memory delay of the duration task further revealed activation in the supramarginal gyrus extending to the parietal operculum (possibly SII) and primary somatosensory cortex (SI). In contrast, the memory delay of the dynamic task involved the bilateral supplementary motor area and the frontoparietal attentional network. Although SI, SII, and insula may contribute to the memory trace of pain sensation, other areas less commonly reported in pain studies are associated with time processing and may therefore contribute to the processing of temporal aspects of pain. Results further suggest a differential role of core timing regions of the brain depending on specific task instructions and attentional allocations to the single dimension of time, as compared to the joint processing of both time and intensity.
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 | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".