Cited by 554Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and TreatmentPain Management and Placebo Effect

From the neuromatrix to the pain matrix (and back)

Iannetti, G. D., Mouraux, A.·2010·Experimental Brain Research

Abstract

Pain is a conscious experience, crucial for survival. To investigate the neural basis of pain perception in humans, a large number of investigators apply noxious stimuli to the body of volunteers while sampling brain activity using different functional neuroimaging techniques. These responses have been shown to originate from an extensive network of brain regions, which has been christened the Pain Matrix and is often considered to represent a unique cerebral signature for pain perception. As a consequence, the Pain Matrix is often used to understand the neural mechanisms of pain in health and disease. Because the interpretation of a great number of experimental studies relies on the assumption that the brain responses elicited by nociceptive stimuli reflect the activity of a cortical network that is at least partially specific for pain, it appears crucial to ascertain whether this notion is supported by unequivocal experimental evidence. Here, we will review the original concept of the "Neuromatrix" as it was initially proposed by Melzack and its subsequent transformation into a pain-specific matrix. Through a critical discussion of the evidence in favor and against this concept of pain specificity, we show that the fraction of the neuronal activity measured using currently available macroscopic functional neuroimaging techniques (e.g., EEG, MEG, fMRI, PET) in response to transient nociceptive stimulation is likely to be largely unspecific for nociception.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00221-010-2340-1

Cites

144 of 144 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Iannetti, G. D., & Mouraux, A.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • UCLouvain (BE)
Corresponding author
Iannetti, G. D.
Venue
Experimental Brain Research
Published
2010-07-06
Volume
205
Issue
1
Pages
1-12
ISSN
  • 0014-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1106
OpenAlex
W2115742360
Cited by
554
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 37
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Experimental Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIAL (Catholic University of Leuven) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/G01177X/2)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
pain matrix, neuromatrix, pain perception, nociception, functional neuroimaging, nociceptive stimulation
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Models, Neurological, Neural Pathways, Nociceptors, Pain, Perception, Pain Threshold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review