MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161703020 · doi:10.1080/00029157.2020.1863184

Spinal and supraspinal modulation of pain responses by hypnosis, suggestions, and distraction

2021· article· en· W3161703020 on OpenAlex
Bérengère Houzé, Anouk Streff, Mathieu Piché, Pierre Rainville

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Hypnosis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHypoalgesiaHypnoticDistractionHyperalgesiaNociceptionPsychologyHypnosisAnesthesiaMedicineNeuroscienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanisms underlying pain modulation by hypnosis and the contribution of hypnotic induction to the efficacy of suggestions being still under debate, our study aimed, (1) to assess the effects of identical hypoalgesia suggestions given with and without hypnotic induction, (2) to compare hypnotic hypoalgesia to distraction hypoalgesia and (3) to evaluate whether hypnotic suggestions of increased and decreased pain share common psychophysiological mechanisms. To this end, pain ratings, nociceptive flexion reflex amplitude, autonomic responses and electroencephalographic activity were measured in response to noxious electrical stimulation of the sural nerve in 20 healthy participants, who were subjected to four conditions: suggestions of hypoalgesia delivered with and without hypnosis induction (i.e. hypnotic-hypoalgesia and suggested-hypoalgesia), distraction by a mental calculation task and hypnotic suggestions of hyperalgesia. As a result, pain ratings decreased in distraction, suggested-hypoalgesia and hypnotic-hypoalgesia, while it increased in hypnotic-hyperalgesia. Nociceptive flexion reflex amplitude and autonomic activity decreased during suggested-hypoalgesia and hypnotic-hypoalgesia but increased during distraction and hypnotic-hyperalgesia. Hypnosis did not enhance the effects of suggestions significantly in any measurement. No somatosensory-evoked potential was modulated by the four conditions according to strict statistical criteria. The absence of a significant difference between the hypnotic hypoalgesia and hyperalgesia conditions suggests that brain processes as evidenced by evoked potentials are not invariably related to pain modulation. Time-frequency analysis of electroencephalographic activity showed a significant differentiation between distraction and hypnotic hypoalgesia in the theta domain. These results highlight the diversity of neurophysiological processes underlying pain modulation through different psychological interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it