Cited by 182Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and TreatmentPain Management and Placebo Effect

An experimental model to measure excitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms in humans

Tousignant-Laflamme, Yannick, Pagé, Stéphanie, Goffaux, Philippe, Marchand, Serge·2008·Brain Research

Abstract

Numerous approaches have been used to induce and measure experimental pain perception with the goal of better understanding excitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms. In this study, the objective was to develop a simple experimental design which would enable us to elicit and measure multiple nociceptive mechanisms that have been reported to play a role in the development and persistency of chronic pain, such as temporal summation (TS) and diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC). Eighty-three healthy subjects (42 men, 41 women) participated in this study where we examined pain perception of two tonic heat pain stimulation (thermode) separated by a 2 minute cold pressor test (CPT) (7 degrees C, 10 degrees C or 12 degrees C) which allowed us to activate DNIC. The heat pain response was characterized by a peak pain during the first 30 s, which was stronger for women (p = 0.001). We also observed a TS phenomenon during the second minute of stimulation. DNIC's analgesia was assessed by measuring the difference in pain ratings between the two thermode procedures, before and after inducing DNIC by a cold pressure test on the opposite arm. We found that the mean pain ratings and peak pain but not TS were significantly reduced by DNIC. No sex differences were observed in DNIC analgesia. Our experimental pain design allowed us to measure several excitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms in one experimental session. We were able to separate the effect of DNIC on the peak pain and on TS. This method is simple, sensitive and can easily be used in different population of either healthy subjects or chronic pain patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.06.120

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Pain-specific expectations have been identified as one of the core mechanisms underlying placebo analgesia.

    “Pain-specific expectations have also been identified as one of the core mechanisms underlying placebo analgesia 365, 366.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tousignant-Laflamme, Y., Pagé, S., Goffaux, P., & Marchand, S.
Affiliations
Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
Corresponding author
Marchand, Serge
Venue
Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
1230
Pages
73-79
ISSN
0006-8993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089996399
Cited by
182
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
experimental pain, temporal summation, diffuse noxious inhibitory control, tonic heat pain, cold pressor test, pain perception, sex differences in pain, chronic pain, nociception, analgesia
MeSH terms
Adult, Cold Temperature, Female, Hot Temperature, Humans, Immersion, Male, Models, Theoretical, Nociceptors, Pain, Pain Measurement, Sex Characteristics

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