Non-nociceptive Somatosensory Stimuli Research Articles

Neural indicators of perceptual variability of pain across species

Individuals exhibit considerable and unpredictable variability in painful percepts in response to the same nociceptive stimulus. Previous work has found neural responses that, while not necessarily responsible for the painful percepts themselves, can still correlate well with intensity of pain perception within a given individual. However, there is no reliable neural response reflecting the variability in pain perception across individuals. Here, we use an electrophysiological approach in humans and rodents to demonstrate that brain oscillations in the gamma band [gamma-band event-related synchronization (γ-ERS)] sampled by central electrodes reliably predict pain sensitivity across individuals. We observed a clear dissociation between the large number of neural measures that reflected subjective pain ratings at within-subject level but not across individuals, and γ-ERS, which reliably distinguished subjective ratings within the same individual but also coded pain sensitivity across different individuals. Importantly, the ability of γ-ERS to track pain sensitivity across individuals was selective because it did not track the between-subject reported intensity of nonpainful but equally salient auditory, visual, and nonnociceptive somatosensory stimuli. These results also demonstrate that graded neural activity related to within-subject variability should be minimized to accurately investigate the relationship between nociceptive-evoked neural activities and pain sensitivity across individuals.

Human primary somatosensory cortex is differentially involved in vibrotaction and nociception.

The role of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) in vibrotaction is well established. In contrast, its involvement in nociception is still debated. Here we test whether S1 is similarly involved in the processing of nonnociceptive and nociceptive somatosensory input in humans by comparing the aftereffects of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) of S1 on the event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited by nonnociceptive and nociceptive somatosensory stimuli delivered to the ipsilateral and contralateral hands. Cathodal HD-tDCS significantly affected the responses to nonnociceptive somatosensory stimuli delivered to the contralateral hand: both early-latency ERPs from within S1 (N20 wave elicited by transcutaneous electrical stimulation of median nerve) and late-latency ERPs elicited outside S1 (N120 wave elicited by short-lasting mechanical vibrations delivered to index fingertip, thought to originate from bilateral operculo-insular and cingulate cortices). These results support the notion that S1 constitutes an obligatory relay for the cortical processing of nonnociceptive tactile input originating from the contralateral hemibody. Contrasting with this asymmetric effect of HD-tDCS on the responses to nonnociceptive somatosensory input, HD-tDCS over the sensorimotor cortex led to a bilateral and symmetric reduction of the magnitude of the N240 wave of nociceptive laser-evoked potentials elicited by stimulation of the hand dorsum. Taken together, our results demonstrate in humans a differential involvement of S1 in vibrotaction and nociception.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Whereas the role of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) in vibrotaction is well established, its involvement in nociception remains strongly debated. By assessing, in healthy volunteers, the effect of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation over S1, we demonstrate a differential involvement of S1 in vibrotaction and nociception.

Classical Conditioning Fails to Elicit Allodynia in an Experimental Study with Healthy Humans.

Associative learning has been proposed as a mechanism behind the persistence of pain after tissue healing. The simultaneous occurrence of nociceptive and non-nociceptive input during acute injury mimics the pairings thought to drive classical conditioning effects. However, empirical evidence for classically conditioned allodynia is lacking. We aimed to manipulate pain thresholds with a classical conditioning procedure that used non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli as conditioned stimuli (CS) and nociceptive stimuli as unconditioned stimuli. We also explored the influence of gender, depression, anxiety, negative affect, and pain catastrophizing on the main manipulation. Thirty-four healthy humans participated in a differential classical conditioning procedure that used vibrotactile stimulations at two different locations as CS. In an acquisition phase, CS+ was paired with painful thermal stimulation, and CS- with nonpainful thermal stimulation. Heat pain threshold was assessed during paired heat-CS trials before and after acquisition. A 2 (time: 1 and 2) x 2 (condition: CS+ and CS-) repeated-measures analysis of variance compared pain thresholds before and after acquisition. Exploratory analyses explored the influence of gender, depression, anxiety, negative affect, and pain catastrophizing. Postexperiment questions investigated participants' awareness of the contingencies employed. The classical conditioning procedure did not alter pain thresholds. Exploratory analyses did not reveal any influence of individual differences. Thirty of the 34 participants were unaware of the contingencies between stimuli. The results of this study provide no evidence that allodynia can be induced in healthy humans using a classical conditioning procedure with simultaneous timing.

Pain by Association? Experimental Modulation of Human Pain Thresholds Using Classical Conditioning

A classical conditioning framework is often used for clinical reasoning about pain that persists after tissue healing. However, experimental studies demonstrating classically conditioned pain in humans are lacking. The current study tested whether non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli can come to modulate pain thresholds after being paired with painful nociceptive stimuli in healthy humans. We used a differential simultaneous conditioning paradigm in which one nonpainful vibrotactile conditioned stimulus (CS(+)) was simultaneously paired with an unconditioned painful laser stimulus, and another vibrotactile stimulus (CS(-)) was paired with a nonpainful laser stimulus. After acquisition, at-pain-threshold laser stimuli were delivered simultaneously with a CS(+) or CS(-) vibrotactile stimulus. The primary outcome was the percentage of at-threshold laser stimuli that were reported as painful. The results were as expected: after conditioning, at-threshold laser trials paired with the CS(+) were reported as painful more often, as more intense, and as more unpleasant than those paired with the CS(-). This study provides new evidence that pain thresholds can be modulated via classical conditioning, even when the stimulus used to test the threshold cannot be anticipated. As such, it lays a critical foundation for further investigations of classical conditioning as a possible driver of persistent pain. This study provides new evidence that human pain thresholds can be influenced by non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli, via a classical conditioning effect. As such, it lays a critical foundation for further investigations of classical conditioning as a possible driver of persistent pain.

Prism adaptation contrasts perceptual habituation for repetitive somatosensory stimuli

Prism adaptation (PA) is a non-invasive procedure that requires performing a visuo-motor pointing task while wearing prism goggles inducing a visual displacement of the pointed target. This procedure involves a reorganization of sensorimotor coordination, and induces long-lasting effects on numerous higher-order cognitive functions in healthy volunteers and neglect patients. Prismatic displacement (PD) of the visual field can be induced when prisms are worn but no sensorimotor task is required. In this case, it is unlikely that any subsequent reorganization takes place. The effects of PD are short-lived in the sense that they last as long as prisms are worn. In this study we aimed, to the best of our knowledge for the first time, at investigating whether PA and PD induce changes in the perception of intensity of nociceptive and non- nociceptive somatosensory stimuli. We induced, in healthy volunteers, PD (experiment 1), or PA (experiment 2) and asked participants to rate the intensity of the stimuli applied to the hand undergoing the visuo-proprioceptive conflict (experiment 1) or adaptation (experiment 2). Our results indicate that: 1) the visuo-proprioceptive conflict induced by PD does not reduce the perceived intensity of the stimuli, 2) PA prevents perceptual habituation for both nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli. Moreover, to investigate the possible underlying mechanisms of the effects of PA we conducted a third experiment in which stimuli were applied both at the adapted and the non-adapted hand. In line with the results of experiment 2, we found that perceptual habituation was prevented for stimuli applied onto the adapted hand. Moreover, we observed the same finding for stimuli applied onto the non-adapted hand. This result suggests that the detention of habituation is not merely driven by changes in spatial attention allocation. Taken together, these data indicate that prisms can affect the perceived intensity of somatosensory stimuli, but only when PA is induced.

Poor judgment of distance between nociceptive stimuli

Although pain is traditionally assumed to be poorly localized, recent work indicates that spatial acuity for nociception is surprisingly high. Here we investigated whether the nervous system can also accurately estimate the distance between two nociceptive stimuli. Estimating distance implies a metric representation of spatial relations, a property that underlies abilities such as perceiving the size of external objects. We presented pairs of simultaneous nociceptive or non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli, and asked participants to judge the distance between them. Judgments of distance between nociceptive stimuli were much worse than judgments of distance between non-nociceptive tactile stimuli, even on skin regions where spatial acuity for nociception exceeded spatial acuity for touch. Control experiments ruled out explanations based on inaccurate localization of double nociceptive stimuli. Thus, the nervous system poorly represents the distance between two nociceptive stimuli. The dissociation between high spatial acuity and poor distance judgment in the nociceptive system may reflect a specialization for computing accurate spatial representations useful to protect the body, rather than to perceive the size of external objects.

Looking at the hand modulates the brain responses to nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli but does not necessarily modulate their perception.

Previous studies have suggested that looking at the hand can reduce the perception of pain and the magnitude of the ERPs elicited by nociceptive stimuli delivered onto the hand. In contrast, other studies have suggested that looking at the hand can increase tactile sensory discrimination performance, and enhance the magnitude of the ERPs elicited by tactile stimulation. These opposite effects could be related to differences in the crossmodal effects between vision, nociception, and touch. However, these differences could also be related to the use of different experimental designs. Importantly, most studies on the effects of vision on pain have relied on a mirror to create the illusion that the reflected hand is a direct view of the stimulated hand. Here, we compared the effects of direct versus mirror vision of the hand versus an object on the perception and ERPs elicited by non-nociceptive and nociceptive stimuli. We did not observe any significant effect of vision on the perceived intensity. However, vision of the hand did reduce the magnitude of the nociceptive N240 wave, and enhanced the magnitude of the non-nociceptive P200. Our results confirm that vision of the body differentially affects nociceptive and non-nociceptive processing, but question the robustness of visual analgesia.

Parallel Processing of Nociceptive and Non-nociceptive Somatosensory Information in the Human Primary and Secondary Somatosensory Cortices: Evidence from Dynamic Causal Modeling of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data

Several studies have suggested that, in higher primates, nociceptive somatosensory information is processed in parallel in the primary (S1) and secondary (S2) somatosensory cortices, whereas non-nociceptive somatosensory input is processed serially from S1 to S2. However, evidence suggesting that both nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory inputs are processed in parallel in S1 and S2 also exists. Here, we aimed to clarify whether or not the hierarchical organization of nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory processing in S1 and S2 differs in humans. To address this question, we applied dynamic causal modeling and Bayesian model selection to functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data collected during the selective stimulation of nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory afferents in humans. This novel approach allowed us to explore how nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory information flows within the somatosensory system. We found that the neural activities elicited by both nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli are best explained by models in which the fMRI responses in both S1 and S2 depend on direct thalamocortical projections. These observations indicate that, in humans, both nociceptive and non-nociceptive information are processed in parallel in S1 and S2.

A multisensory investigation of the functional significance of the “pain matrix”

Functional neuroimaging studies in humans have shown that nociceptive stimuli elicit activity in a wide network of cortical areas commonly labeled as the “pain matrix” and thought to be preferentially involved in the perception of pain. Despite the fact that this “pain matrix” has been used extensively to build models of where and how nociception is processed in the human brain, convincing experimental evidence demonstrating that this network is specifically related to nociception is lacking. The aim of the present study was to determine whether there is at least a subset of the “pain matrix” that responds uniquely to nociceptive somatosensory stimulation. In a first experiment, we compared the fMRI brain responses elicited by a random sequence of brief nociceptive somatosensory, non-nociceptive somatosensory, auditory and visual stimuli, all presented within a similar attentional context. We found that the fMRI responses triggered by nociceptive stimuli can be largely explained by a combination of (1) multimodal neural activities (i.e., activities elicited by all stimuli regardless of sensory modality) and (2) somatosensory-specific but not nociceptive-specific neural activities (i.e., activities elicited by both nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli). The magnitude of multimodal activities correlated significantly with the perceived saliency of the stimulus. In a second experiment, we compared these multimodal activities to the fMRI responses elicited by auditory stimuli presented using an oddball paradigm. We found that the spatial distribution of the responses elicited by novel non-target and novel target auditory stimuli resembled closely that of the multimodal responses identified in the first experiment. Taken together, these findings suggest that the largest part of the fMRI responses elicited by phasic nociceptive stimuli reflects non nociceptive-specific cognitive processes.

Nociceptive Laser-Evoked Brain Potentials Do Not Reflect Nociceptive-Specific Neural Activity

Brief radiant laser pulses can be used to activate cutaneous Adelta and C nociceptors selectively and elicit a number of transient brain responses [laser-evoked potentials (LEPs)] in the ongoing EEG. LEPs have been used extensively in the past 30 years to gain knowledge about the cortical mechanisms underlying nociception and pain in humans, by assuming that they reflect at least neural activities uniquely or preferentially involved in processing nociceptive input. Here, by applying a novel blind source separation algorithm (probabilistic independent component analysis) to 124-channel event-related potentials elicited by a random sequence of nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory, auditory, and visual stimuli, we provide compelling evidence that this assumption is incorrect: LEPs do not reflect nociceptive-specific neural activity. Indeed, our results indicate that LEPs can be entirely explained by a combination of multimodal neural activities (i.e., activities also elicited by stimuli of other sensory modalities) and somatosensory-specific, but not nociceptive-specific, neural activities (i.e., activities elicited by both nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli). Regardless of the sensory modality of the eliciting stimulus, the magnitude of multimodal activities correlated with the subjective rating of saliency, suggesting that these multimodal activities are involved in stimulus-triggered mechanisms of arousal or attentional reorientation.

How response inhibition modulates nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory brain-evoked potentials

Objective To examine and compare the modulation of nociceptive somatosensory laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) and non-nociceptive somatosensory electrically-evoked potentials (SEPs) by brain processes related to response inhibition. Methods A warning auditory tone was followed by either an electrical or a laser stimulus. Subjects performed a Go/ Nogo task in which they were instructed to respond to the laser stimulus and refrain from responding to the electrical stimulus in half of the runs. In the other half, they performed the opposite. The paradigm allowed a direct, within-subject comparison of the electrophysiological correlates of brain processes related to the Go/ Nogo task in both somatosensory submodalities. Results In the Nogo-condition, SEPs displayed an enhanced N120 (early Nogo-response), a reduced vertex P240 and enhanced frontal P3 (late Nogo-responses). In contrast, LEPs only displayed late Nogo-related responses (reduced vertex P350 and enhanced frontal P3). Conclusions The early Nogo-related enhancement of SEPs may reflect brain processes specific to the processing of non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli. Later components of the Nogo-response may reflect cortical activity common to the processing of both nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli. Significance Response inhibition significantly modulates both LEPs and SEPs. Part of these activities may be specific of the eliciting stimulus modality.