Cortical integration of bilateral nociceptive signals: when more is less
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integration of nociceptive information is essential to produce adapted responses, to promote body integrity and survival. However, how the brain integrates nociceptive inputs from different body areas remains unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the cortical integration of bilateral nociceptive inputs evoked by laser heat stimuli. Sixteen healthy volunteers (8 F, 8 M; age: 25.5 ± 4.3) were recruited to participate in one session during which painful laser stimuli were applied to their hands with 2 Nd:YAP laser systems. Electroencephalographic activity was recorded to measure laser-evoked potentials and event-related spectral perturbations. Twenty nociceptive stimuli were applied in each of the 4 counterbalanced conditions: (1) right hand, (2) left hand, and both hands with (3) attention to the right or (4) attention to the left. Compared with unilateral conditions, N2 and P2 peak amplitude as well as gamma oscillation power were decreased in bilateral conditions (P < 0.05), but these effects were not affected by the direction of attention (P > 0.1). By contrast, pain was not significantly different in any condition (P > 0.05). These findings show that although more nociceptive inputs reach the brain with multiple nociceptive stimuli, their sensory representation is decreased while pain perception remains unchanged. These interactions between cerebral processing of nociceptive information from different body regions could support coordinated behavioral responses when pain origins from multiple sources.
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) | 0.000 | 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".