Top-down threat bias in pain perception is predicted by intrinsic structural and functional connections of the brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Top-down processes such as expectations play a key role in pain perception. In specific contexts, inferred threat of impending pain can affect perceived pain more than the noxious intensity. This biasing effect of top-down threats can affect some individuals more strongly than others due to differences in fear of pain. The specific characteristics of intrinsic brain characteristics that mediate the effects of top-down threat bias are mainly unknown. In this study, we examined whether threat bias is associated with structural and functional brain connectivity. The variability in the top-down bias was mapped to the microstructure of white matter in diffusion weighted images (DWI) using MRTrix3. Mean functional connectivity of five canonical resting state networks was tested for association with bias scores and with the identified DWI metrics. We found that the fiber density of the splenium of the corpus callosum was significantly low in individuals with high top-down threat bias (FWE corrected with 5000 permutations, p < 0.05). The mean functional connectivity within the language/memory and between language/memory and default mode networks predicted the bias scores. Functional connectivity within language memory networks predicted the splenium fiber density, higher pain catastrophizing and lower mindful awareness. Probabilistic tractography showed that the identified region in the splenium connected several sensory regions and high-order parietal regions between the two hemispheres, indicating the splenium's role in sensory integration. These findings demonstrate that individuals who show more change in pain with changes in the threat of receiving a stronger noxious stimulus have lower structural connectivity in the pathway necessary for integrating top-down cue information with bottom-up sensory information. Conversely, systems involved in memory recall, semantic and self-referential processing are more strongly connected in people with top-down threat bias.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".