Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two-way interaction of pain and cognitive performance has both scientific and clinical importance. This thesis sought to determine how: (1) cognitive and emotional load modulate pain ratings and activity in specific regions activated during acute pain; (2) acute pain affects cognitive-related activity and performance; (3) individual characteristics affect pain and cognitive interactions; (4) pain and cognitive functional networks interact. Experiments using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in healthy humans were carried out to assess the interaction effects of experimental pain and cognitive load. In separate sessions, subjects repeated experiments performed in the fMRI studies, but this time gave pain intensity and/or unpleasantness ratings. Several questionnaires (Neuroticism-extraversion-openness (NEO) Personality Index, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire) were completed to assess individual differences. Activity in several pain-related areas was attenuated by concomitant performance of a task during pain, including primary and secondary somatosensory cortices, and anterior insula. In one study, this modulation was dependent on the strategy employed by the subjects, whereby subjects who attended more to the task showed attenuated activity in pain-related areas, and those who were distracted by pain did not. Pain ratings were not greatly affected by cognitive load, nor was task performance affected by pain, and cognitive- and pain-related activity were minimally affected by pain or cognitive load, respectively. Pain enhanced activity in a task-related whole-brain network supporting focused attention. Pain catastrophizing was associated with increased activity in areas involved in interoception, awareness, and pain affect during mild pain (anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex), and a lack of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation in moderate pain. The findings suggest that pain-related activity can be modulated by cognitive load, but this modulation could depend on behavioural strategy. Pain catastrophizing also affects the pain experience and this is mediated by areas involved in awareness and affect, or a lack of descending pain control. Behavioural and imaging results suggest that overall pain- and cognitive-related activations are robust and the two processes can occur simultaneously. Finally, that pain enhances activity in a network related to attentional focus implies a potential mechanism for impairment of cognitive function in people with 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".