Cited by 44Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and TreatmentPain Management and Placebo Effect

Differential effects on the laser evoked potential of selectively attending to pain localisation versus pain unpleasantness

Bentley, D.E, Watson, A, Treede, R.-D, Barrett, G, Youell, P.D, Kulkarni, B, Jones, A.K.P·2004·Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

Objective To determine the effects on the laser evoked potential (LEP) of selectively attending to affective (unpleasantness) versus sensory-discriminative (localisation) components of pain.Methods LEPs, elicited by painful CO2 laser stimulation of two areas of the right forearm, were recorded from 62 electrodes in 21 healthy volunteers, during three tasks that were matched for generalised attention: Localisation (report stimulus location), Unpleasantness (report stimulus unpleasantness), Control (report pain detection). LEP components are named by polarity, latency, and electrode.Results N300-T7 peak amplitude was significantly greater during Localisation than Unpleasantness. The difference in N300-T7 amplitude between Localisation and Control approached significance, suggesting an increased amplitude in Localisation compared with Control, rather than a reduced amplitude in Unpleasantness. Peak amplitude, latency, and topography of N300-FCz, P450, P600-800 (early P3) and P800-1000 (late P3) did not differ significantly between tasks.Conclusions These results suggest that the N300-T7 LEP peak reflects the activity of cerebral generators involved in the localisation of pain. The topography of N300-T7 is consistent with a source in contralateral secondary somatosensory cortex/insula and maybe primary somatosensory cortex.Significance This study confirms a role of the lateral pain system in the localisation of pain, and distinguishes it from stimulus novelty or attention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.03.010

Cites

46 of 46 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
Bentley, D. E., Watson, A., Treede, R.-D., Barrett, G., Youell, P. D., Kulkarni, B., & Jones, A. K. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (GB)
Corresponding author
Bentley, D.E
Venue
Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-08
Volume
115
Issue
8
Pages
1846-1856
ISSN
1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2020216920
Cited by
44
References
46
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (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
laser-evoked potentials, pain localization, pain unpleasantness, attentional modulation, P300, somatosensory cortex, insula, CO2 laser stimulation
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory, Female, Humans, Lasers, Male, Pain, Pain Measurement, Reaction Time

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