The Potential Clinical Utility of Pressure-Based vs. Heat-Based Paradigms to Measure Conditioned Pain Modulation in Healthy Individuals and Those With Chronic Pain

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a physiological measure thought to reflect an individual's endogenous pain modulation system. CPM varies across individuals and provides insight into chronic pain pathophysiology. There is growing evidence that CPM may help predict individual pain treatment outcome. However, paradigm variabilities and practical issues have impeded widespread clinical adoption of CPM assessment. This study aimed to compare two CPM paradigms in people with chronic pain and healthy individuals. A total of 30 individuals (12 chronic pain, 18 healthy) underwent two CPM paradigms. The heat CPM paradigm acquired pain intensity ratings evoked by a test stimulus (TS) applied before and during the conditioning stimulus (CS). The pressure CPM paradigm acquired continuous pain intensity ratings of a gradually increasing TS, before and during CS. Pain intensity was rated from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable); Pain50 is the stimulus level for a response rated 50. Heat and pressure CPM were calculated as a change in TS pain intensity ratings at Pain50, where negative CPM scores indicate pain inhibition. We also determined CPM in the pressure paradigm as change in pressure pain detection threshold (PDT). We found that in healthy individuals the CPM effect was significantly more inhibitory using the pressure paradigm than the heat paradigm. The pressure CPM effect was also significantly more inhibitory when based on changes at Pain50 than at PDT. However, in individuals with chronic pain there was no significant difference in pressure CPM compared to heat or PDT CPM. There was no significant correlation between clinical pain measures (painDETECT and Brief Pain Inventory) and paradigm type (heat vs. pressure), although heat-based CPM and painDETECT scores showed a trend. Importantly, the pressure paradigm could be administered in less time than the heat paradigm. Thus, our study indicates that in healthy individuals, interpretation of CPM findings should consider potential modality-dependent effects. However, in individuals with chronic pain, either heat or pressure paradigms can similarly be used to assess CPM. Given the practical advantages of the pressure paradigm (e.g., short test time, ease of use), we propose this approach to be well-suited for clinical adoption.

No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design. A cross-sectional observational study

Background Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is measured by comparing pain induced by a test stimulus with pain induced by the same test stimulus, either during (parallel design) or after (sequential design) the conditioning stimulus. Whether design, conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection affect CPM remains unclear. Methods CPM effects were evaluated in healthy participants (N = 89) at the neck, forearm and lower leg using the cold pressor test as the conditioning stimulus. In three separate experiments, we compared the impact of (1) design (sequential versus parallel), (2) conditioning stimulus intensity (VAS 40/100 versus VAS 60/100), and (3) test stimulus selection (single versus dual, i.e., mechanical and thermal). Statistical analyses of the main effect of design (adjusted for order) and experiment were conducted using linear mixed models with random intercepts. Results No significant differences were identified in absolute CPM data. In relative CPM data, a sequential design resulted in a slightly lower CPM effect compared to a parallel design, and only with a mechanical test stimulus at the neck (−6.1%; 95% CI [−10.1 to −2.1]) and lower leg (−5.9%; 95% CI [−11.7 to −0.1]) but not forearm (−4.5%; 95% CI [−9.0 to 0.1]). Conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection did not influence the CPM effect nor the difference in CPM effects derived from parallel versus sequential designs. Conclusions Differences in CPM effects between protocols were minimal or absent. A parallel design may lead to a minimally higher relative CPM effect when using a mechanical test stimulus. The conditioning stimulus intensities assessed in this study and performing two test stimuli did not substantially influence the differences between designs nor the magnitude of the CPM effect.

Conditioned Pain Modulation Is Not Impaired in Individuals with Frozen Shoulder: A Case-Control Study

Frozen shoulder (FS) is a poorly understood condition resulting in substantial shoulder pain and mobility deficits. The mechanisms behind FS are not yet fully understood, but, similar to other persistent pain states, central pain mechanisms may contribute to ongoing symptoms in this population. The objective of this research was to investigate conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in people with FS compared with pain-free individuals. A total of 64 individuals with FS and 64 healthy volunteers participated in this cross-sectional study. CPM was assessed by using the pressure pain threshold (PPT) and an occlusion cuff (tourniquet test) as the test and conditioning stimulus, respectively. The absolute and percentage of change in PPT (CPM effect) as well as pain profiles (pro-nociceptive vs. anti-nociceptive) of individuals with FS and healthy controls were calculated. No significant differences in the absolute change in the PPT or CPM effect were found in people with FS compared to pain-free controls. Moreover, no between-group differences in the percentage of subjects with pro-nociceptive and anti-nociceptive pain profiles were observed. These results suggest that endogenous pain inhibition is normally functioning in people with FS. Altered central pain-processing mechanisms may thus not be a characteristic of this population.

Functional Connectivity at Rest between the Human Medial Posterior Parietal Cortex and the Primary Motor Cortex Detected by Paired-Pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

The medial posterior parietal cortex (PPC) is involved in the complex processes of visuomotor integration. Its connections to the dorsal premotor cortex, which in turn is connected to the primary motor cortex (M1), complete the fronto-parietal network that supports important cognitive functions in the planning and execution of goal-oriented movements. In this study, we wanted to investigate the time-course of the functional connectivity at rest between the medial PPC and the M1 using dual-site transcranial magnetic stimulation in healthy humans. We stimulated the left M1 using a suprathreshold test stimulus to elicit motor-evoked potentials in the hand, and a subthreshold conditioning stimulus was applied over the left medial PPC at different inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs). The conditioning stimulus affected the M1 excitability depending on the ISI, with inhibition at longer ISIs (12 and 15 ms). We suggest that these modulations may reflect the activation of different parieto-frontal pathways, with long latency inhibitions likely recruiting polisynaptic pathways, presumably through anterolateral PPC.

Comparison of Thermal and Electrical Modalities in the Assessment of Temporal Summation of Pain and Conditioned Pain Modulation

Temporal summation of pain (TSP) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) can be measured using a thermode and a cold pressor test (CPT). Unfortunately, these tools are complex, expensive, and are ill-suited for routine clinical assessments. Building on the results from an exploratory study that attempted to use transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to measure CPM and TSP, the present study assesses whether a “new” TENS protocol can be used instead of the thermode and CPT to measure CPM and TSP. The objective of this study was to compare the thermode/CPT protocol with the new TENS protocol, by (1) measuring the association between the TSP evoked by the two protocols; (2) measuring the association between the CPM evoked by the two protocols; and by (3) assessing whether the two protocols successfully trigger TSP and CPM in a similar number of participants. We assessed TSP and CPM in 50 healthy participants, using our new TENS protocol and a thermode/CPT protocol (repeated measures and randomized order). In the TENS protocol, both the test stimulus (TS) and the conditioning stimulus (CS) were delivered using TENS; in the thermode/CPT protocol, the TS was delivered using a thermode and the CS consisted of a CPT. There was no association between the response evoked by the two protocols, neither for TSP nor for CPM. The number of participants showing TSP [49 with TENS and 29 with thermode (p < 0.001)] and CPM [16 with TENS and 30 with thermode (p = 0.01)] was different in both protocols. Our results suggest that response to one modality does not predict response to the other; as such, TENS cannot be used instead of a thermode/CPT protocol to assess TSP and CPM without significantly affecting the results. Moreover, while at first glance it appears that TENS is more effective than the thermode/CPT protocol to induce TSP, but less so to induce CPM, these results should be interpreted carefully. Indeed, TSP and CPM response appear to be modality-dependent as opposed to an absolute phenomenon, and the two protocols may tap into entirely different mechanisms, especially in the case of TSP.

The effects of an upper body conditioning stimulus on lower body post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE): a pilot study

Complex training where a high-load conditioning stimulus (CS) is performed prior to a biomechanically similar plyometric movement has been demonstrated to acutely enhance the performance of the plyometric movement in a phenomenon called post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE). Despite the positive influence PAPE can have on power production, the abundance of research has only investigated PAPE locally while comparing biomechanically similar movements. The purpose of this study was to determine if a heavy barbell bench press could elicit PAPE in a lower body plyometric movement. Eight (n = 8) resistance-trained males performed one set of countermovement jumps (CMJs) before (pre-CS) and three sets of CMJs after (post-CS) a heavy bench press set. Changes in muscle activation, jump height, work, power output, and rate of force development (RFD) during the early (E-RFD) and late (L-RFD) stages were compared between pre-CS and post-CS. The level of significance was set at p < .05. There were no significant differences in muscle activation, jump height, work, power output, or E-RFD (p > .05). There was a significant increase in L-RFD between pre-CS and the final set of jumps post-CS (p = .01). These results suggest that an upper body CS may not influence PAPE in the lower body. However, pairing a high-load upper body exercise with a lower body plyometric does not seem disadvantageous, and could be implemented as a strategy to maximize workout time efficiency with proper fatigue management incorporation.

Inter-Individual Differences Explain More Variance in Conditioned Pain Modulation Than Age, Sex and Conditioning Stimulus Intensity Combined

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) describes the reduction in pain evoked by a test stimulus (TS) when presented together with a heterotopic painful conditioning stimulus (CS). CPM has been proposed to reflect inter-individual differences in endogenous pain modulation, which may predict susceptibility for acute and chronic pain. Here, we aimed to estimate the relative variance in CPM explained by inter-individual differences compared to age, sex, and CS physical and pain intensity. We constructed linear and mixed effect models on pooled data from 171 participants of several studies, of which 97 had repeated measures. Cross-sectional analyses showed no significant effect of age, sex or CS intensity. Repeated measures analyses revealed a significant effect of CS physical intensity (p = 0.002) but not CS pain intensity (p = 0.159). Variance decomposition showed that inter-individual differences accounted for 24% to 34% of the variance in CPM while age, sex, and CS intensity together explained <3% to 12%. In conclusion, the variance in CPM explained by inter-individual differences largely exceeds that of commonly considered factors such as age, sex and CS intensity. This may explain why predictive capability of these factors has had conflicting results and suggests that future models investigating them should account for inter-individual differences.

Paradoxical facilitation alongside interhemispheric inhibition

Neurophysiological experiments using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) have sought to probe the function of the motor division of the corpus callosum. Primary motor cortex sends projections via the corpus callosum with a net inhibitory influence on the homologous region of the opposite hemisphere. Interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) experiments probe this inhibitory pathway. A test stimulus (TS) delivered to the motor cortex in one hemisphere elicits motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in a target muscle, while a conditioning stimulus (CS) applied to the homologous region of the opposite hemisphere modulates the effect of the TS. We predicted that large CS MEPs would be associated with increased IHI since they should be a reliable index of how effectively contralateral motor cortex was stimulated and therefore of the magnitude of interhemispheric inhibition. However, we observed a strong tendency for larger CS MEPs to be associated with reduced interhemispheric inhibition which in the extreme lead to a net effect of facilitation. This surprising effect was large, systematic, and observed in nearly all participants. We outline several hypotheses for mechanisms which may underlie this phenomenon to guide future research.

A Re-evaluation of Whether Non-monosynaptic Homonymous H Reflex Facilitation Tests Propriospinal Circuits

The C3–C4 propriospinal system is an important pathway mediating movement in cats; it contributes to movements in primates (including humans), and may have a role in recovery after lesion. Validated clinical tests of this system would find many applications, therefore we sought to test whether non-monosynaptic homonymous facilitation of the forearm flexor H reflex is mediated solely via a C3–C4 propriospinal pathway. In one anesthetized macaque monkey, median nerve stimulation elicited an H reflex in the flexor carpi radialis (FCR). Median nerve conditioning stimuli at sub-threshold intensities facilitated the H reflex, for inter-stimulus intervals up to 30 ms. Successive spinal surgical hemisections were then made. C2 lesion left the homonymous facilitation intact, suggesting mediation by spinal, not supraspinal pathways. Facilitation also remained after a second lesion at C5, indicating a major role for segmental (C7–C8) rather than propriospinal (C3–C4) interneurons. In separate experiments in five healthy human subjects, a threshold tracking approach assessed changes in peripheral axon excitability after conditioning stimulation. This was found to be enhanced up to 20 ms after the conditioning stimulus, and could partly, although not completely, underlie the H reflex facilitation seen. We conclude that homonymous facilitation of the H reflex in FCR can be produced by segmental spinal mechanisms, as well as by a supranormal period of nerve excitability. Unfortunately, this straightforward test cannot therefore be used for selective assessment of propriospinal circuits.

Paired-pulse interactions

Paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) techniques provide an opportunity to examine and better understand the excitatory and inhibitory circuitry in the human cortex in health and disease. Typically, a conditioning stimulus is applied and the effect on cortical excitability is inferred by the change in motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited by a test stimulus delivered shortly (milliseconds) thereafter. This approach has revealed a range of distinct, but generally overlapping, excitatory and inhibitory phenomena, which have been characterized according to their temporal and pharmacological profile, activation threshold, and various other properties. These phenomena have provided new pathophysiological insights into neurological and psychiatric disorders, and paired-pulse TMS measures have demonstrated clinical diagnostic utility. More recently, via implementation of TMS-evoked electroencephalography (TMS-EEG), paired-pulse TMS protocols have started to expand into nonmotor regions.