Effect of movement‐related pain on behaviour and corticospinal excitability changes associated with arm movement preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
KEY POINTS: Experimental pain or its anticipation influence motor preparation processes as well as upcoming movement execution, but the underlying physiological mechanisms remain unknown. Our results showed that movement-related pain modulates corticospinal excitability during motor preparation. In accordance with the pain adaptation theory, corticospinal excitability was higher when the muscle has an antagonist (vs. an agonist) role for the upcoming movement associated with pain. Anticipation of movement-related pain also affects motor initiation and execution, with slower movement initiation (longer reaction times) and faster movement execution compared to movements that do not evoke pain. These results confirm the implementation of protective strategies during motor preparation known to be relevant for acute pain, but which may potentially have detrimental long-term consequences and lead to the development of chronic pain. ABSTRACT: When a movement repeatedly generates pain, we anticipate movement-related pain and establish self-protective strategies during motor preparation, but the underlying mechanisms remains poorly understood. The current study investigated the effect of movement-related pain anticipation on the modulation of behaviour and corticospinal excitability during the preparation of arm movements. Participants completed an instructed-delay reaction-time (RT) task consisting of elbow flexions and extensions instructed by visual cues. Nociceptive laser stimulations (unconditioned stimuli) were applied to the lateral epicondyle during movement execution in a specific direction (CS+) but not in the other (CS-), depending on experimental group. During motor preparation, transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to measure corticospinal excitability in the biceps brachii (BB). RT and peak end-point velocity were also measured. Neurophysiological results revealed an opposite modulation of corticospinal excitability in BB depending on whether it plays an agonist (i.e. flexion) or antagonist (i.e. extension) role for the CS+ movements (P < 0.001). Moreover, behavioural results showed that for the CS+ movements RT did not change relative to baseline, whereas the CS- movements were initiated more quickly (P = 0.023) and the CS+ flexion movements were faster relative to the CS- flexion movements (P < 0.001). This is consistent with the pain adaptation theory which proposes that in order to protect the body from further pain, agonist muscle activity is reduced and antagonist muscle activity is increased. If these strategies are initially relevant and lead to short-term pain alleviation, they may potentially have detrimental long-term consequences and lead to the development of chronic 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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".