Integration of nociceptive information is essential to produce adapted responses, to promote body integrity and survival. However, how the brain integrates nociceptive inputs from different body areas remains unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the cortical integration of bilateral nociceptive inputs evoked by laser heat stimuli. Sixteen healthy volunteers (8 F, 8 M; age: 25.5 ± 4.3) were recruited to participate in one session during which painful laser stimuli were applied to their hands with 2 Nd:YAP laser systems. Electroencephalographic activity was recorded to measure laser-evoked potentials and event-related spectral perturbations. Twenty nociceptive stimuli were applied in each of the 4 counterbalanced conditions: (1) right hand, (2) left hand, and both hands with (3) attention to the right or (4) attention to the left. Compared with unilateral conditions, N2 and P2 peak amplitude as well as gamma oscillation power were decreased in bilateral conditions (P < 0.05), but these effects were not affected by the direction of attention (P > 0.1). By contrast, pain was not significantly different in any condition (P > 0.05). These findings show that although more nociceptive inputs reach the brain with multiple nociceptive stimuli, their sensory representation is decreased while pain perception remains unchanged. These interactions between cerebral processing of nociceptive information from different body regions could support coordinated behavioral responses when pain origins from multiple sources.

Together with the nociceptive system, pain protects the body from tissue damage. For instance, when the RIII-reflex is evoked by sural nerve stimulation, nociceptive inputs activate flexor muscles and inhibit extensor muscles of the affected lower limb while producing the opposite effects on the contralateral muscles. But how do the spinal cord and brain integrate concurrent sensorimotor information originating from both limbs? This is critical for evoking coordinated responses to nociceptive stimuli, but has been overlooked. Here we show that the spinal cord integrates spinal inhibitory and descending facilitatory inputs during concurrent bilateral foot stimulation, resulting in facilitation of the RIII-reflex and bilateral flexion. In these conditions, high-gamma oscillation power was also increased in the dorsolateral prefrontal, anterior cingulate and sensorimotor cortex, in accordance with the involvement of these regions in cognitive, motor and pain regulation. We propose that the brain and spinal cord can fine-tune nociceptive and pain responses when nociceptive inputs arise from both lower limbs concurrently, in order to allow adaptable behavioural responses.

Background and Aims: Spinal manipulation (SM) is currently recommended for the management of back pain. Experimental studies indicate that the hypoalgesic mechanisms of SM may rely on inhibition of segmental processes related to temporal summation of pain and, possibly, on central sensitization, although this remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether experimental back pain, secondary hyperalgesia, and pain-related brain activity induced by capsaicin are decreased by segmental SM.Methods: Seventy-three healthy volunteers were randomly allocated to one of four experimental groups: SM at T5 vertebral level (segmental), SM at T9 vertebral level (heterosegmental), placebo intervention at T5 vertebral level, or no intervention. Topical capsaicin was applied to the area of T5 vertebra for 40 min. After 20 min, the interventions were administered. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were assessed outside the area of capsaicin application at 0 and 40 min to examine secondary hyperalgesia. Capsaicin pain intensity and unpleasantness were reported every 4 min. Frontal high-gamma oscillations were also measured with electroencephalography.Results: Pain ratings and brain activity were not significantly different between groups over time (p &gt; 0.5). However, PPTs were significantly decreased in the placebo and control groups (p &lt; 0.01), indicative of secondary hyperalgesia, while no hyperalgesia was observed for groups receiving SM (p = 1.0). This effect was independent of expectations and greater than placebo for segmental (p &lt; 0.01) but not heterosegmental SM (p = 1.0).Conclusions: These results indicate that segmental SM can prevent secondary hyperalgesia, independently of expectations. This has implications for the management of back pain, particularly when central sensitization is involved.

The cerebral integration of somatosensory inputs from multiple sources is essential to produce adapted behaviors. Previous studies suggest that bilateral somatosensory inputs interact differently depending on stimulus characteristics, including their noxious nature. The aim of this study was to clarify how bilateral inputs evoked by noxious laser stimuli, noxious shocks, and innocuous shocks interact in terms of perception and brain responses. The experiment comprised two conditions (right-hand stimulation and concurrent stimulation of both hands) in which painful laser stimuli, painful shocks and non-painful shocks were delivered. Perception, somatosensory-evoked potentials (P45, N100, P260), laser-evoked potentials (N1, N2 and P2) and event-related spectral perturbations (delta to gamma oscillation power) were compared between conditions and stimulus modalities. The amplitude of negative vertex potentials (N2 or N100) and the power of delta/theta oscillations were increased in the bilateral compared with unilateral condition, regardless of the stimulus type (P < 0.01). However, gamma oscillation power increased for painful and non-painful shocks (P < 0.01), but not for painful laser stimuli (P = 0.08). Despite the similarities in terms of brain activity, bilateral inputs interacted differently for painful stimuli, for which perception remained unchanged, and non-painful stimuli, for which perception increased. This may reflect a ceiling effect for the attentional capture by noxious stimuli and warrants further investigations to examine the regulation of such interactions by bottom-up and top-down processes.

No abstract