Pain reflects the informational value of nociceptive inputs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Pain perception and its modulation are fundamental to human learning and adaptive behavior. This study investigated the hypothesis that pain perception is tied to pain's learning function. Thirty-one participants performed a threat conditioning task where certain cues were associated with a possibility of receiving a painful electric shock. The cues that signaled potential pain or safety were regularly changed, requiring participants to continually establish new associations. Using computational models, we quantified participants' pain expectations and prediction errors throughout the task and assessed their relationship with pain perception and electrophysiological responses. Our findings suggest that subjective pain perception increases with prediction error, that is, when pain was unexpected. Prediction errors were also related to physiological nociceptive responses, including the amplitude of nociceptive flexion reflex and electroencephalography markers of cortical nociceptive processing (N1-P2-evoked potential and gamma-band power). In addition, higher pain expectations were related to increased late event-related potential responses and alpha/beta decreases in amplitude during cue presentation. These results further strengthen the idea of a crucial link between pain and learning and suggest that understanding the influence of learning mechanisms in pain modulation could help us understand when and why pain perception is modulated in health and disease.
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 | 0.027 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".