Stable individual differences in habituation and sensitization to prolonged painful stimulation are underpinned by activity in the hippocampus, amygdala, and sensorimotor cortices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Acute pain serves to warn an organism of potential damage. Two plausible theoretical response scenarios for prolonged painful stimulation could be hypothesised: If the organism does not sense potential harm an individual may habituate. Whereas, if harm is possible, pain sensitization may be more probable. Examining how an individual adapts to prolonged stimulation will provide unique insight into the mechanisms underlying pain habituation and sensitisation and, potentially, a valuable perspective on the development of chronic pain. However, currently little is known about the stability of these individual differences or their underlying neural mechanisms. To address this, 85 participants completed an MRI session, involving a noxious stimulation task and a resting-state scan. Habituation/sensitization was operationalized as the slope of change in pain ratings across the task. Habituation was associated with increasing activity in the anterior hippocampus and amygdala over time, with sensitization associated with increasing activity in the sensorimotor cortices. These regions were then used as seeds for a resting-state functional connectivity analysis, which revealed that habituation was associated with higher connectivity between the hippocampus and ventromedial prefrontal cortex, as well as higher connectivity between sensorimotor regions and the hippocampus, amygdala, and insula cortex. We have shown that habituation/sensitization to pain is a stable trait underpinned by differential activity in brain regions supporting sensory processing and appraisal. The perspective of these stable phenotypical patterns could have clinical applications and potential for improving our understanding of the development of chronic pain.
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".