Top-down threat bias in pain perception is predicted by higher segregation between resting-state networks
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
Top-down processes such as expectations have a strong influence on pain perception. Predicted threat of impending pain can affect perceived pain even more than the actual intensity of a noxious event. This type of threat bias in pain perception is associated with fear of pain and low pain tolerance, and hence the extent of bias varies between individuals. Large-scale patterns of functional brain connectivity are important for integrating expectations with sensory data. Greater integration is necessary for sensory integration; therefore, here we investigate the association between system segregation and top-down threat bias in healthy individuals. We show that top-down threat bias is predicted by less functional connectivity between resting-state networks. This effect was significant at a wide range of network thresholds and specifically in predefined parcellations of resting-state networks. Greater system segregation in brain networks also predicted higher anxiety and pain catastrophizing. These findings highlight the role of integration in brain networks in mediating threat bias 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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