Threat Prediction from Schemas as a Source of Bias in Pain Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our sensory impressions of pain are generally thought to represent the noxious properties of an agent but can be influenced by the predicted level of threat. Predictions can be sourced from higher-order cognitive processes, such as schemas, but the extent to which schemas can influence pain perception relative to bottom-up sensory inputs and the underlying neural underpinnings of such a phenomenon are unclear. Here, we investigate how threat predictions generated from learning a cognitive schema lead to inaccurate sensory impressions of the pain stimulus. Healthy male and female participants first detected a linear association between cue values and stimulus intensity and rated pain to reflect the linear schema when compared with uncued heat stimuli. The effect of bias on pain ratings was reduced when prediction errors (PEs) increased, but pain perception was only partially updated when measured against stepped increases in PEs. Cognitive, striatal, and sensory regions graded their responses to changes in predicted threat despite the PEs ( p < 0.05, corrected). Individuals with more catastrophic thinking about pain and with low mindfulness were significantly more reliant on the schema than on the sensory evidence from the pain stimulus. These behavioral differences mapped to variability in responses of the striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Thus, this study demonstrates a significant role of higher-order schemas in pain perception and indicates that pain perception is biased more toward predictions and less toward nociceptive inputs in individuals who report less mindfulness and more fear of pain. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT This study demonstrates that threat predictions generated from cognitive schemas continue to influence pain perception despite increasing prediction errors arising in pain pathways. Individuals first formed a cognitive schema of linearity in the relationship between the cued threat value and the stimulus intensity. Subsequently, the linearity was reduced gradually, and participants partially updated their evaluations of pain in relation to the stepped increases in prediction errors. Individuals who continued to rate pain based more on the predicted threat than on changes in nociceptive inputs reported high pain catastrophizing and less mindful-awareness scores. These two affects mapped to activity in the ventral and dorsal striatum, respectively. These findings direct us to a significant role of top-down processes in pain perception.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".