A Computational Framework for Understanding the Impact of Prior Experiences on Pain Perception and Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain perception is influenced not only by sensory input from afferent neurons but also by cognitive factors such as prior expectations. It has been suggested that overly precise priors may be a key contributing factor to chronic pain states such as neuropathic pain. However, it remains an open question how overly precise priors in favor of pain might arise. Here, we first verify that a Bayesian approach can describe how statistical integration of prior expectations and sensory input results in pain phenomena such as placebo hypoalgesia, nocebo hyperalgesia, chronic pain, and spontaneous neuropathic pain. Our results indicate that the value of the prior, which is determined by the internal model parameters, may be a key contributor to these phenomena. Next, we apply a hierarchical Bayesian approach to update the parameters of the internal model based on the difference between the predicted and the perceived pain, to reflect that people integrate prior experiences in their future expectations. In contrast with simpler approaches, this hierarchical model structure is able to show for placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia how these phenomena can arise from prior experiences in the form of a classical conditioning procedure. We also demonstrate the phenomenon of offset analgesia, in which a disproportionally large pain decrease is obtained following a minor reduction in noxious stimulus intensity. Finally, we turn to simulations of neuropathic pain, where our hierarchical model corroborates that persistent non-neuropathic pain is a risk factor for developing neuropathic pain following denervation, and additionally offers an interesting prediction that complete absence of informative painful experiences could be a similar risk factor. Taken together, these results provide insight to how prior experiences may contribute to pain perception, in both experimental and neuropathic pain, which in turn might be informative for improving strategies of pain prevention and relief.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".