Cited by 3,126Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and TreatmentPain Management and Placebo Effect

Human brain mechanisms of pain perception and regulation in health and disease

Open access
Apkarian, A. Vania, Bushnell, M. Catherine, Treede, Rolf‐Detlef, Zubieta, Jon‐Kar·2005·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

Context The perception of pain due to an acute injury or in clinical pain states undergoes substantial processing at supraspinal levels. Supraspinal, brain mechanisms are increasingly recognized as playing a major role in the representation and modulation of pain experience. These neural mechanisms may then contribute to interindividual variations and disabilities associated with chronic pain conditions. Objective To systematically review the literature regarding how activity in diverse brain regions creates and modulates the experience of acute and chronic pain states, emphasizing the contribution of various imaging techniques to emerging concepts. Data Sources MEDLINE and PRE‐MEDLINE searches were performed to identify all English‐language articles that examine human brain activity during pain, using hemodynamic (PET, fMRI), neuroelectrical (EEG, MEG) and neurochemical methods (MRS, receptor binding and neurotransmitter modulation), from January 1, 1988 to March 1, 2003. Additional studies were identified through bibliographies. Study Selection Studies were selected based on consensus across all four authors. The criteria included well‐designed experimental procedures, as well as landmark studies that have significantly advanced the field. Data Synthesis Sixty‐eight hemodynamic studies of experimental pain in normal subjects, 30 in clinical pain conditions, and 30 using neuroelectrical methods met selection criteria and were used in a meta‐analysis. Another 24 articles were identified where brain neurochemistry of pain was examined. Technical issues that may explain differences between studies across laboratories are expounded. The evidence for and the respective incidences of brain areas constituting the brain network for acute pain are presented. The main components of this network are: primary and secondary somatosensory, insular, anterior cingulate, and prefrontal cortices (S1, S2, IC, ACC, PFC) and thalamus (Th). Evidence for somatotopic organization, based on 10 studies, and psychological modulation, based on 20 studies, is discussed, as well as the temporal sequence of the afferent volley to the cortex, based on neuroelectrical studies. A meta‐analysis highlights important methodological differences in identifying the brain network underlying acute pain perception. It also shows that the brain network for acute pain perception in normal subjects is at least partially distinct from that seen in chronic clinical pain conditions and that chronic pain engages brain regions critical for cognitive/emotional assessments, implying that this component of pain may be a distinctive feature between chronic and acute pain. The neurochemical studies highlight the role of opiate and catecholamine transmitters and receptors in pain states, and in the modulation of pain with environmental and genetic influences. Conclusions The nociceptive system is now recognized as a sensory system in its own right, from primary afferents to multiple brain areas. Pain experience is strongly modulated by interactions of ascending and descending pathways. Understanding these modulatory mechanisms in health and in disease is critical for developing fully effective therapies for the treatment of clinical pain conditions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejpain.2004.11.001

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Psychological factors including maladaptive cognitions (e.g., catastrophizing, fear of pain) and negative emotions can exacerbate pain perception via cortico-limbic brain circuitry.

    “Psychological factors including maladaptive cognitions (e.g., catastrophizing, fear of pain) and negative emotions can exacerbate pain perception via cortico-limbic brain circuitry, 9 -11”

    From Randomized Controlled Trial of Brief Mindfulness Training and Hypnotic Suggestion for Acute Pain Relief in the Hospital Setting. (2017) · cites this paper as [9]

    Section 3.3, “Psychological modulation of pain” (page unavailable), says negative emotional states enhance pain-evoked activity in limbic regions and that expectation of pain activates pain-related circuitry. The psychological-modulation table also reports amplified pain-related responses with anxiety. These passages support the general link, but the copy does not specifically identify catastrophizing or fear of pain as the maladaptive cognitions responsible. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • None of the regions showing significant cross-classification between pain and rejection are primary pain-processing regions.

    “Critically, none of these regions are primary ‘pain-processing’ regions36,42.”
  • Heat-pain versus Warmth was predicted by activation in regions associated with nociceptive processing and endogenous pain control, including right dpINS, bilateral S2, medial thalamus and PAG.

    “Heat-pain versus Warmth was predicted by activation in many regions associated with nociceptive processing and endogenous pain control36,37, such as right (contralateral) dpINS, bilateral S2, medial thalamus and periaqueductal gray (PAG).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 242 · Cited by 3,126

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Becerra LR, Breiter HC, Stojanovic M, Fishman S, Edwards A, Comite AR, et al. Human brain activation under controlled thermal stimulation and habituation to noxious heat: an fMRI study. Magn Reson Med 1999;41:1044-57.
  2. Casey KL. Central pain: distributed effects of focal lesions. Pain 2004;108:205-6.
  3. Cruccu G, Romaniello A, Amantini A, Lombardi M, Innocenti P, Manfredi M. Assessment of trigeminal small-fiber function: brain and reflex responses evoked by CO 2 -laser stimulation. Muscle Nerve 1999;22:508-16.
  4. Devos D, CreacÕh C, Laureau E, Bourriez JL, Guieu JD. Thulium laser evoked potentials. Normative values for the arms and legs. Neurophysiol Clin 2000;30:313-22.
  5. Disbrow E, Buonocore M, Antognini J, Carstens E, Rowley HA. Somatosensory cortex: a comparison of the response to noxious thermal, mechanical, and electrical stimuli using functional mag- netic resonance imaging. Hum Brain Mapp 1998;6:150-9.
  6. Ploner M, Gross J, Timmermann L, Schnitzler A. Cortical represen- tation of first and second pain sensation in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:12444-8.
  7. Tolle TR, Kaufmann T, Siessmeier T, Lautenbacher S, Berthele A, Munz F, et al. Region-specific encoding of sensory and affective components of pain in the human brain: a positron emission tomography correlation analysis. Ann Neurol 1999;45:40-7.
  8. Willoch F, Rosen G, Tolle TR, Oye I, Wester HJ, Berner N, et al. Phantom limb pain in the human brain: unraveling neural circuitries of phantom limb sensations using positron emission tomography. Ann Neurol 2000;48:842-9.
  9. Zubieta JK, Heitzeg MM, Smith YR, Bueller JA, Xu K, Xu Y, et al. COMT val158met genotype affects mu-opioid neurotransmitter responses to a pain stressor. Science 2003;299:1240-3.

Authors
Apkarian, A. V., Bushnell, M. C., Treede, R., & Zubieta, J.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Apkarian, A. Vania
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-08
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
463-463
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W2131165483
Cited by
3,126
References
242
Citations by year
2026: 112 · 2025: 127 · 2024: 125 · 2023: 129 · 2022: 158 · 2021: 172 · 2020: 171 · 2019: 165 · 2018: 160 · 2017: 163 · 2016: 198 · 2015: 183 · 2014: 143 · 2013: 191 · 2012: 169
FWCI
11.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
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 perception, pain modulation, chronic pain, acute pain, supraspinal pain processing, somatosensory cortex, insula, anterior cingulate cortex, prefrontal cortex, thalamus, somatotopic organization, opioid receptors, catecholamines
MeSH terms
Afferent Pathways, Brain, Diagnostic Imaging, Humans, Nerve Net, Nociceptors, Pain, Intractable Pain, Perception, Sensation

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