Pupil dilation evoked by painful electrical stimulation is abolished during pain inhibition by distraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to examine the contribution of spinal and supraspinal processes to pain modulation by attention. It is hypothesized that pain inhibition by distraction is accompanied by reduced pain-evoked pupil dilation and cerebral activity, but no inhibition of the nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR), while pain anticipation is expected to increase pain perception and pain-related responses. Twenty healthy volunteers received 90 painful stimuli in control, distraction (mental arithmetic), and anticipation (visual cue) conditions. Anticipation did not modulate pain (p = .7), while distraction decreased pain significantly (p < .001). Moreover, pupil diameter increased 500-1000 ms post-stimulus in the control condition (p < .05), but this response was abolished by distraction. Distraction also decreased pain-related brain activity (high-gamma oscillations) (p = .004), but not the NFR (p = .3). These results suggest that pain inhibition by distraction is produced, in part, by supraspinal inhibition of nociceptive processes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".