scholarly journals Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. L. Do ◽  
E. K. Enax-Krumova ◽  
Ö. Özgül ◽  
L. B. Eitner ◽  
S. Heba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Cold Water ◽  
Cognitive Task ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
Cognitive Distraction ◽  
Painful Sensation ◽  
Back Task

Abstract Background Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Using painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) as TS and painful cold water as CS, the pain relief was paralleled by a decrease in evoked potentials (PCES-EPs). We now aimed to compare the effect of CPM with cognitive distraction on PCES-induced pain and PCES-EP amplitudes. Methods PCES was performed using surface electrodes inducing a painful sensation of 60 (NRS 0–100) on one hand. In a crossover design healthy subjects (included: n = 38, analyzed: n = 23) immersed the contralateral hand into 10 °C cold water (CS) for CPM evaluation and performed the 1-back task for cognitive distraction. Before and during the CS and 1-back task, respectively, subjects rated the pain intensity of PCES and simultaneously cortical evoked potentials were recorded. Results Both CPM and cognitive distraction significantly reduced PCES-EP amplitudes (CPM: 27.6 ± 12.0 μV to 20.2 ± 9.5 μV, cognitive distraction: 30.3 ± 14.2 µV to 13.6 ± 5.2 μV, p < 0.001) and PCES-induced pain (on a 0–100 numerical rating scale: CPM: 58 ± 4 to 41.1 ± 12.3, cognitive distraction: 58.3 ± 4.4 to 38.0 ± 13.0, p < 0.001), though the changes in pain intensity and PCES-amplitude did not correlate. The changes of the PCES-EP amplitudes during cognitive distraction were more pronounced than during CPM (p = 0.001). Conclusions CPM and cognitive distraction reduced the PCES-induced pain to a similar extent. The more pronounced decrease of PCES-EP amplitudes after distraction by a cognitive task implies that both conditions might not represent the general pain modulatory capacity of individuals, but may underlie different neuronal mechanisms with the final common pathway of perceived pain reduction.

scholarly journals Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Lisa Do ◽  
Elena Enax-Krumova ◽  
Özüm Özgül ◽  
Lynn B. Eitner ◽  
Stefanie Heba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Cold Water ◽  
Cognitive Task ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
Cognitive Distraction ◽  
Painful Sensation ◽  
Back Task

Abstract BackgroundConditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Using painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) as TS and painful cold water as CS, the pain relief was paralleled by a decrease in evoked potentials (PCES-EPs). We now aimed to compare the effect of CPM with cognitive distraction on PCES-induced pain and PCES-EP amplitudes. MethodsPCES was performed using surface electrodes inducing a painful sensation of 60 (NRS 0-100) on one hand. In a crossover design healthy subjects (included: n=38, analyzed: n=23) immersed the contralateral hand into 10°C cold water (CS) for CPM evaluation and performed the 1-back task for cognitive distraction. Before and during the CS and 1-back task, respectively, subjects rated the pain intensity of PCES and simultaneously cortical evoked potentials were recorded. ResultsBoth CPM and cognitive distraction significantly reduced PCES-EP amplitudes (CPM: 27.6±12.0μV to 20.2±9.5μV, cognitive distraction: 30.3±14.2µV to 13.6±5.2μV, p<0.001) and PCES-induced pain (on a 0–100 numerical rating scale: CPM: 58±4 to 41.1±12.3, cognitive distraction: 58.3±4.4 to 38.0±13.0, p<0.001), though the changes in pain intensity and PCES-amplitude did not correlate. The changes of the PCES-EP amplitudes during cognitive distraction were more pronounced than during CPM (p=0.001).ConclusionsCPM and cognitive distraction reduced the PCES-induced pain to a similar extent. The more pronounced decrease of PCES-EP amplitudes after distraction by a cognitive task implies that both conditions might not represent the general pain modulatory capacity of individuals, but may underlie different neuronal mechanisms with the final common pathway of perceived pain reduction.

scholarly journals Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Lisa Do ◽  
Elena Enax-Krumova ◽  
Özüm Özgül ◽  
Lynn B. Eitner ◽  
Stefanie Heba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Cold Water ◽  
Cognitive Task ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
Cognitive Distraction ◽  
Painful Sensation ◽  
Back Task

Abstract Background Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Using painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) as TS and painful cold water as CS, the pain relief was paralleled by a decrease in evoked potentials (PCES-EPs). We now aimed to compare the effect of CPM with cognitive distraction on PCES-induced pain and PCES-EP amplitudes. Methods PCES was performed using surface electrodes inducing a painful sensation of 60 (NRS 0-100) on one hand. In a crossover design healthy subjects (included: n=38, analyzed: n=23) immersed the contralateral hand into 10°C cold water (CS) for CPM evaluation and performed the 1-back task for cognitive distraction. Before and during the CS and 1-back task, respectively, subjects rated the pain intensity of PCES and simultaneously cortical evoked potentials were recorded. Results Both CPM and cognitive distraction significantly reduced PCES-EP amplitudes (CPM: 27.6±12.0μV to 20.2±9.5μV, cognitive distraction: 30.3±14.2µV to 13.6±5.2μV, p<0.001) and PCES-induced pain (on a 0–100 numerical rating scale: CPM: 58±4 to 41.1±12.3, cognitive distraction: 58.3±4.4 to 38.0±13.0, p<0.001), though the changes in pain intensity and PCES-amplitude did not correlate. The changes of the PCES-EP amplitudes during cognitive distraction were more pronounced than during CPM (p=0.001). Conclusions CPM and cognitive distraction reduced the PCES-induced pain to a similar extent. The more pronounced decrease of PCES-EP amplitudes after distraction by a cognitive task implies that both conditions might not represent the general pain modulatory capacity of individuals, but may underlie different neuronal mechanisms with the final common pathway of perceived pain reduction.

scholarly journals Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Lisa Do ◽  
Elena Enax-Krumova ◽  
Özüm Özgül ◽  
Lynn B. Eitner ◽  
Stefanie Heba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Cold Water ◽  
Cognitive Task ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
Cognitive Distraction ◽  
Painful Sensation ◽  
Back Task

Abstract Background Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Using painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) as TS and painful cold water as CS, the pain relief was paralleled by a decrease in evoked potentials (PCES-EPs). We now aimed to compare the effect of CPM with cognitive distraction on PCES-induced pain and PCES-EP amplitudes. Methods PCES was performed using surface electrodes inducing a painful sensation of 60 (NRS 0-100) on one hand. In a crossover design healthy subjects (included: n=38, analyzed: n=23) immersed the contralateral hand into 10°C cold water (CS) for CPM evaluation and performed the 1-back task for cognitive distraction. Before and during the CS and 1-back task, respectively, subjects rated the pain intensity of PCES and simultaneously cortical evoked potentials were recorded. Results Both CPM and cognitive distraction significantly reduced PCES-EP amplitudes (CPM: 27.6±12.0μV to 20.2±9.5μV, cognitive distraction: 30.3±14.2µV to 13.6±5.2μV, p<0.001) and PCES-induced pain (on a 0–100 numerical rating scale: CPM: 58±4 to 41.1±12.3, cognitive distraction: 58.3±4.4 to 38.0±13.0, p<0.001), though the changes in pain intensity and PCES-amplitude did not correlate. The changes of the PCES-EP amplitudes during cognitive distraction were more pronounced than during CPM (p=0.001).Conclusions CPM and cognitive distraction reduced the PCES-induced pain to a similar extent. The more pronounced decrease of PCES-EP amplitudes after distraction by a cognitive task implies that both conditions might not represent the general pain modulatory capacity of individuals, but may underlie different neuronal mechanisms with the final common pathway of perceived pain reduction.

scholarly journals Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Lisa Do ◽  
Elena Enax-Krumova ◽  
Özüm Özgül ◽  
Lynn B. Eitner ◽  
Stefanie Heba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Cold Water ◽  
Cognitive Task ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
Cognitive Distraction ◽  
Painful Sensation ◽  
Back Task

Abstract Background Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Using painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) as TS and painful cold water as CS, the pain relief was paralleled by a decrease in evoked potentials (PCES-EPs). We now aimed to compare the effect of CPM with cognitive distraction on PCES-induced pain and PCES-EP amplitudes. Methods PCES was performed in 38 healthy subjects using surface electrodes inducing a painful sensation of 60 (NRS 0-100) on one hand. In a crossover design subjects immersed the contralateral hand into painful cold water (10 °C, CS) for CPM evaluation and performed the 1-back task for cognitive distraction. Before and during the CS and 1-back task, respectively, subjects rated the pain intensity of PCES and simultaneously cortical evoked potentials were recorded. Results Both CPM and cognitive distraction significantly reduced PCES-EP amplitudes (CPM: from 30.9 ± 9.9 µV to 24.35 ± 8.41 µV, cognitive distraction: from 33.0 ± 8.8 µV to 19.5 ± 6.5 µV, p < 0.05) and PCES-induced pain (CPM: from 58 ± 4 to 39 ± 12, cognitive distraction: from 58 ± 4 to 36 ± 14, p < 0.05), though the changes in pain intensity and PCES-amplitude did not correlate. The changes of the PCES-EP amplitudes during cognitive distraction were significantly more pronounced than during CPM. Conclusions The amount of pain relief induced by CPM and cognitive distraction seems to be similar. However, the even more pronounced decrease of PCES-EP amplitudes after distraction by a cognitive task implies that both conditions do not represent the general pain modulatory capacity of individuals, but may underlie different neuronal mechanisms with the final common pathway of perceived pain reduction.

scholarly journals Painful Cutaneous Electrical Stimulation vs. Heat Pain as Test Stimuli in Conditioned Pain Modulation

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 684
Author(s):  
Elena Enax-Krumova ◽  
Ann-Christin Plaga ◽  
Kimberly Schmidt ◽  
Özüm S. Özgül ◽  
Lynn B. Eitner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Test Stimulus ◽  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
Heat Pain ◽  
Dominant Hand ◽  
Group Level

Different paradigms can assess the effect of conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The aim of the present study was to compare heat pain, as an often used test stimulus (TS), to painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES), having the advantage of the additional recording of PCES-related evoked potentials. In 28 healthy subjects we applied heat and PCES at the dominant hand as test stimulus (TS) to compare the CPM-effect elicited by hand immersion into cold water (10 °C) as conditioning stimulus (CS). Subjects rated the pain intensity of TS at baseline, during and 5 min after CS application and additionally of CS, on a numerical rating scale (NRS) (0–100). The ‘early’ (during CS–before CS) and ‘late’ (after CS–before CS) CPM-effects were analyzed. Parallel to the PCES, the related evoked potentials were recorded via Cz to evaluate any changes in PCES-amplitudes. CS reduced significantly the pain intensity of both PCES and heat pain as TS. On a group level, the CPM-effect did not differ significantly between both paradigms. Both early and late CPM-effect based on PCES correlated significantly with the CS pain intensity (r = −0.630 and −0.503, respectively), whereas using heat pain the correlation was not significant. We found a significant reduction of PCES-amplitudes during CS, but this did not correlate with the PCES-induced pain intensity. Correlation with the CS painfulness (r = −0.464) did not achieve the significance level after Bonferroni correction. The extent of the CPM effects was similar in both testing paradigms at group level, despite intraindividual differences. Future studies should further elicit the exact mechanisms explaining the modality of these specific differences.

Fixed or adapted conditioning intensity for repeated conditioned pain modulation

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 176-176
Author(s):  
M. Hoegh ◽  
K.K. Petersen ◽  
T. Graven-Nielsen
Keyword(s):  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Cuff Pressure ◽  
Detection Threshold ◽  
Conditioning Stimulus ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Pain Tolerance ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Aims Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is used to assess descending pain modulation through a test stimulation (TS) and a conditioning stimulation (CS). Due to potential carry-over effects, sequential CPM paradigms might alter the intensity of the CS, which potentially can alter the CPM-effect. This study aimed to investigate the difference between a fixed and adaptive CS intensity on CPM-effect. Methods On the dominant leg of 20 healthy subjects the cuff pressure detection threshold (PDT) was recorded as TS and the pain tolerance threshold (PTT) was assessed on the non-dominant leg for estimating the CS. The difference in PDT before and during CS defined the CPM-effect. The CPM-effect was assessed four times using a CS with intensities of 70% of baseline PTT (fixed) or 70% of PTT measured throughout the session (adaptive). Pain intensity of the conditioning stimulus was assessed on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Data were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVA. Results No difference was found comparing the four PDTs assessed before CSs for the fixed and the adaptive paradigms. The CS pressure intensity for the adaptive paradigm was increasing during the four repeated assessments (P < 0.01). The pain intensity was similar during the fixed (NRS: 5.8±0.5) and the adjusted paradigm (NRS: 6.0±0.4). The CPM-effect was higher using the fixed condition compared with the adaptive condition (P < 0.05). Conclusions The current study found that sequential CPM paradigms using a fixed conditioning stimulus produced an increased CPM-effect compared with adaptive and increasing conditioning intensities.

Not just a matter of pain intensity: Effects of three different conditioning stimuli on conditioned pain modulation effects

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 287-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valquíria Aparecida da Silva ◽  
Ricardo Galhardoni ◽  
Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira ◽  
Daniel Ciampi de Andrade
Keyword(s):  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioning Stimuli

scholarly journals Does human serotonin-1A receptor polymorphism (rs6295) code for pain and associated symptoms in fibromyalgia syndrome?

Reumatismo ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-31
Author(s):  
S. Tanwar ◽  
B. Mattoo ◽  
U. Kumar ◽  
R. Dada ◽  
R. Bhatia
Keyword(s):  
Gene Polymorphism ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Fibromyalgia Syndrome ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Mcgill Pain Questionnaire ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Serotonin 1A Receptor

Genetic predisposition may play an important role in the development of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Serotonin is known to be involved in pain modulation and serotonin-1A receptor plays a considerable role in determining the central 5-HT tone. Consequently, variation in 5-HT1A receptor gene (HTR1A) may be responsible for inter-individual variability in pain sensitivity and other clinical symptoms of FMS. Therefore, the objectives of this research work were to study the gene polymorphism of 5-HTR1A gene and to explore the correlation between rs6295 genotype (−1019C/G HTR1A) and duration of pain, pain intensity and pain related depression and anxiety, if any, in FMS. 5-HTR1A genotype for the C(-1019)G polymorphism was typed in 62 patients with FMS and 42 healthy subjects. Present pain intensity, components of pain and pain related depression and anxiety were assessed using the numerical pain rating scale, McGill pain questionnaire and Hamilton depression and anxiety rating scale respectively. 5-HTR1A gene was represented by three different genotypes, homozygous C/C, heterozygous C/G and homozygous G/G. Analysis of the 5-HTR1A gene showed a frequency of 58%, 31% and 11% for the C/C, C/G and G/G genotypes, respectively in FMS group. This proportion was 69%, 23% and 8% in healthy subjects. No significant correlation was observed between 5-HTR1A gene polymorphism and pain and related symptoms in FMS patients. To the best of our knowledge this is the first study which investigated the correlation between the 5-HTR1A gene polymorphism and pain intensity, the affective component of pain, pain related depression and anxiety in FMS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document