Modulating subjective pain perception with decoded Montreal Neurological Institute-space neurofeedback: a proof-of-concept study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain is a complex emotional experience that still remains challenging to manage. Previous functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have associated pain with distributed patterns of brain activity (i.e. brain decoders), but it is still unclear whether these observations reflect causal mechanisms. To address this question, we devised a new neurofeedback approach using real-time decoding of fMRI data to test if modulating pain-related multivoxel fMRI patterns could lead to changes in subjective pain experience. We first showed that subjective pain ratings can indeed be accurately predicted using a real-time decoding approach based on the stimulus intensity independent pain signature (SIIPS) and the neurologic pain signature (NPS). Next, we trained participants ( n = 16) in a double-blinded decoded fMRI neurofeedback experiment to up- or downregulate the SIIPS. Our results indicate that participants can learn to downregulate the expression of SIIPS independently from NPS expression. Importantly, the success of this neurofeedback training was associated with the perceived intensity of painful stimulation following the intervention. Taken together, these results indicate that closed-loop brain imaging can be efficiently conducted using a priori fMRI decoders of pain, potentially opening up a new range of applications for decoded neurofeedback, both for clinical and basic science purposes. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Neurofeedback: new territories and neurocognitive mechanisms of endogenous neuromodulation’.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".