The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sex differences in responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli are dependent upon the stimulation method
Abstract
Sex differences in thermo- and electrocutaneous responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli were investigated in 20 women and 20 men. Heat pain, warmth, and cold thresholds were assessed on the hand and foot with a Peltier thermode system. In addition, subjects used magnitude estimation to judge the sensation intensity evoked by temperatures ranging from 38 degrees C to 48 degrees C applied to the forearm. To measure detection, pain, and tolerance thresholds of electrocutaneous sensitivity, electrical pulses were administered to the hand. Magnitude estimates of sensation intensity were assessed for stimuli ranging from 0.5 mA to 4.0 mA. There were no sex differences in heat pain, warmth and cold thresholds. There were significant sex differences in electrical detection, pain and tolerance thresholds, with lower thresholds in women. Correspondingly, magnitude estimates were similar in women and men when using thermal stimuli while women judged stimuli from 2.5 mA on as more intense than men when using electrical stimuli. Despite these discrepancies, the measures for pain responsiveness from the two stimulation methods correlated significantly. In contrast, no significant correlations between the methods were found when considering the responsiveness to non-painful stimuli. The findings help to clarify controversies in the pain literature about sex differences. Results affirming and denying such differences could be obtained within a single sample, with stimulation method as the critical variable.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sex differences and personality factors in responsivity to pain
Otto, M. W., & Dougher, M. J. (1985) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.2466/pms.1985.61.2.383 · Cited by 193
Clark, W. C., & Mehl, L. (1971) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0031800 · Cited by 133
Cited by
Theoretical perspectives on the relation between catastrophizing and pain
Sullivan, M. J. L., Thorn, B., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Keefe, F., Martin, M., Bradley, L. A., & Lefebvre, J. C. (2001) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/00002508-200103000-00008 · Cited by 2,472
Sex differences in the perception of noxious experimental stimuli: a meta-analysis
Riley, J. L., Robinson, M. E., Wise, E. A., Myers, C. D., & Fillingim, R. B. (1998) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00199-1 · Cited by 1,085
Sex-related hormonal influences on pain and analgesic responses
Fillingim, R. B., & Ness, T. J. (2000) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(00)00017-8 · Cited by 554
Rollman, G. B. (1995) · Pain Forum · doi:10.1016/s1082-3174(11)80026-7 · Cited by 399
Self-citationRuscheweyh, R., Marziniak, M., Stumpenhorst, F., Reinholz, J., & Knecht, S. (2009) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.06.020 · Cited by 362
Metadata
- Authors
- Lautenbacher, S., & Rollman, G. B.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1993-06
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 255-264
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2008644560
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sex differences in responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli are dependent upon the stimulation method. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-3959(93)90221-a
- The paper
- Lautenbacher, S., & Rollman, G. B. (1993). Sex differences in responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli are dependent upon the stimulation method. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(93)90221-a
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.