Pavlov’s Pain: the Effect of Classical Conditioning on Pain Perception and its Clinical Implications

Zhang, Libo; Lu, Xuejing; Bi, Yanzhi; Hu, Li

doi:10.1007/s11916-019-0766-0

Cited by 27 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 160 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are consistent with the simulation theory of empathy, which proposed that empathy for others' pain relies on psychological and neural representations that are similar to those needed for the perception of self-pain (Decety & Jackson, 2004;Lamm & Majdandžić, 2015). It is widely recognized that pain perception in healthy volunteers not only depends on noxious inputs (Hu & Iannetti, 2019), but also is influenced by emotions and beliefs about the pain that they have (Zhang, Lu, Bi, & Hu, 2019;Zhou et al, 2019), such as pain-related anxiety (Wiech & Tracey, 2009), pain catastrophizing (Kjogx et al, 2016), and pain-related fear (Hirsh et al, 2008). Accordingly, it is reasonable to hypothesize that others' pain would be spontaneously matched to the prepared schema for the processing of self-pain, thereby instigating similar pain-related emotional and cognitive processing.…”

Section: The Relationship Between Pain Sensitivity and Empathy Was supporting

confidence: 87%

Can self‐pain sensitivity quantify empathy for others' pain?

Ren

Zhao

et al. 2020

Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empathy is essential for the survival of social species. In many studies, especially those with animal models, empathy for pain was evaluated by the modulation of pain sensitivity. However, the relationship between pain sensitivity and empathy for pain is not well established. Here, by performing two experiments, we aimed to investigate their relationship at both behavioral and electrophysiological levels. In Experiment 1, we characterized individual pain sensitivity using pain threshold and tolerance in a cold pressor test, self‐report empathy using Interpersonal Reactivity Index, and pain‐related psychological factors, including pain‐related anxiety, depression, pain catastrophizing, and pain‐related fear, using well‐validated questionnaires. We observed that pain sensitivity was positively correlated with emotional empathy, and their relationship was mediated by pain‐related anxiety, pain catastrophizing, and pain‐related fear. In Experiment 2, we quantified empathy for pain using pain intensity and unpleasantness as well as event‐related potentials (ERPs) in an empathy for pain task. Positive correlations were observed between pain sensitivity and psychophysiological empathic responses (i.e., the P3 component and the late positive potential in ERPs), and their relationship was mediated by pain‐related fear. These results suggested that being influenced by some pain‐related psychological factors, individuals with higher pain sensitivity tended to have stronger empathy for pain, manifested as stronger emotional reactions to others' pain. Our results indicated that the conventional strategy of using pain sensitivity to quantify empathy should be treated with caution, as their relationship could be disturbed by experimental manipulations or pathological modulations that could influence individual emotional states or cognitive processes.

show abstract

Section: The Relationship Between Pain Sensitivity and Empathy Was supporting

confidence: 87%

Can self‐pain sensitivity quantify empathy for others' pain?

Ren

Zhao

et al. 2020

Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is well known that pain experience is highly variable and could be influenced by factors at different dimensions (e.g., physical, physiological, psychological, social, and cultural factors), which support a multidimensional framework for the modulation of the pain experience 26 . For instance, being stimulated by the same physical stimuli, pain perception would be different when the psychological state (e.g., anxiety level, the fearful level to the stimuli, and the attention level) of the subjects was changed 3,9,[27][28][29] . In the present study, the psychological state of subjects could be different between the two sessions, as the subjects became more familiar with the experimental environment and the nociceptive stimuli in T2 session than in T1 session.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test–retest reliability of laser evoked pain perception and fMRI BOLD responses

Hou

Zhong

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pain perception is a subjective experience and highly variable across time. Brain responses evoked by nociceptive stimuli are highly associated with pain perception and also showed considerable variability. To date, the test–retest reliability of laser-evoked pain perception and its associated brain responses across sessions remain unclear. Here, an experiment with a within-subject repeated-measures design was performed in 22 healthy volunteers. Radiant-heat laser stimuli were delivered on subjects’ left-hand dorsum in two sessions separated by 1–5 days. We observed that laser-evoked pain perception was significantly declined across sessions, coupled with decreased brain responses in the bilateral primary somatosensory cortex (S1), right primary motor cortex, supplementary motor area, and middle cingulate cortex. Intraclass correlation coefficients between the two sessions showed “fair” to “moderate” test–retest reliability for pain perception and brain responses. Additionally, we observed lower resting-state brain activity in the right S1 and lower resting-state functional connectivity between right S1 and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the second session than the first session. Altogether, being possibly influenced by changes of baseline mental state, laser-evoked pain perception and brain responses showed considerable across-session variability. This phenomenon should be considered when designing experiments for laboratory studies and evaluating pain abnormalities in clinical practice.

show abstract

“…Pain, a multimodal experience which involves complex mechanisms including molecular and cellular transduction pathways and neuronal plasticity, is usually transient (acute pain) or sustained and nonreversible (chronic pain) (193). Microglia were shown to be critically involved in the development and persistence of the adaptations that derive the transition from acute to chronic pain (194).…”

Section: Painmentioning

confidence: 99%

The microbiota–microglia axis in central nervous system disorders

Mossad

Erny

2020

Brain Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The innate immune system in the central nervous system (CNS) is mainly represented by specialized tissue‐resident macrophages, called microglia. In the past years, various species‐, host‐ and tissue‐specific as well as environmental factors were recognized that essentially affect microglial properties and functions in the healthy and diseased brain. Host microbiota are mostly residing in the gut and contribute to microglial activation states, for example, via short‐chain fatty acids (SCFAs) or aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) ligands. Thereby, the gut microorganisms are deemed to influence numerous CNS diseases mediated by microglia. In this review, we summarize recent findings of the interaction between the host microbiota and the CNS in health and disease, where we specifically highlight the resident gut microbiota as a crucial environmental factor for microglial function as what we coin “the microbiota‐microglia axis.”

show abstract

Pavlov’s Pain: the Effect of Classical Conditioning on Pain Perception and its Clinical Implications

Cited by 27 publications

References 160 publications

Can self‐pain sensitivity quantify empathy for others' pain?

Can self‐pain sensitivity quantify empathy for others' pain?

Test–retest reliability of laser evoked pain perception and fMRI BOLD responses

The microbiota–microglia axis in central nervous system disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About