Experimental muscle pain and music, do they interact?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Music is used to evoke audio analgesia during dental procedures, but it is unknown if experimental pain and music interact. This study aimed to explore the multisensory interaction between contrasting types of music and experimentally induced muscle pain. METHODS: In 20 healthy women, 0.3 mL sterile hypertonic saline (5.8%) was injected into the masseter muscle during three sessions while contrasting music (classical and black metal) or no music was played in the background. Pain intensity was assessed every 15 seconds with a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) until pain subsided. Pain spread (pain drawings), unpleasantness (VAS), anxiety (VAS), and pain quality (McGill Questionnaire) were assessed after the last pain assessment. RESULTS: Pain of high intensity was evoked at all sessions with a median (interquartile range) peak pain intensity of 78 (30) in the black metal music, 86 (39) in the classical music, and 77 (30) in the control session. The pain duration was 142 (150) seconds in the black metal music, 135 (150) seconds in the classical music, and 135 (172) seconds in the control session. The corresponding pain-drawing areas were 42 (52), 37 (36), and 44 (34), arbitrary units respectively. There were no differences in any of these variables (Friedman's test; P´s > .368), or in unpleasantness, anxiety, or pain quality between sessions (P´s > .095). CONCLUSIONS: Experimentally induced muscle pain does not seem to be influenced by contrasting types of background music. Further studies exploring the multisensory integration between music and experimental muscle pain are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".