Unique brain regions involved in positive versus negative emotional modulation of pain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims Research has shown that negative emotions increase perceived pain whereas positive emotions reduce pain. Here we aim to investigate the neural mechanisms underlying this phenomenon. Methods While undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, 20 healthy adult females were presented with negative, neutral, and positive emotion-evoking visual stimuli in combination with the presentation of a noxious thermal stimulus to the hand. Participants rated the intensity and unpleasantness of the noxious thermal stimulus during each of the valence conditions. General linear model analyses were performed on the imaging data for each valence condition and specific contrasts were run. Results Significant differences were detected for the emotional modulation of pain (EMP) between the positive and negative conditions. Unique to the positive condition, there was increased activity in the inferior parietal, parahippocampal/perirhinal, precuneus/superior parietal, and the prefrontal cortices. Unique to the negative condition, there was increased activity in anterior and posterior cingulate and angular gyrus. Conclusions Positive and negative EMP appear to involve different brain regions. Implications Although there is some overlap in the brain regions involved in the positive and negative EMP, brain regions unique to each condition are identified and, moreover, the regions identified are involved in internal and external focus, respectively, pointing to a potential mechanism underlying this phenomenon.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it