The lateral prefrontal cortex mediates the hyperalgesic effects of negative cognitions in chronic pain patients
Open accessAbstract
Unlabelled Although high levels of negative affect and cognitions have been associated with greater pain sensitivity in chronic pain conditions, the neural mechanisms mediating the hyperalgesic effect of psychological factors in patients with pain disorders are largely unknown. In this cross-sectional study, we hypothesized that 1) catastrophizing modulates brain responses to pain anticipation and 2) anticipatory brain activity mediates the hyperalgesic effect of different levels of catastrophizing in fibromyalgia (FM) patients. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we scanned the brains of 31 FM patients exposed to visual cues anticipating the onset of moderately intense deep-tissue pain stimuli. Our results indicated the existence of a negative association between catastrophizing and pain-anticipatory brain activity, including in the right lateral prefrontal cortex. A bootstrapped mediation analysis revealed that pain-anticipatory activity in the lateral prefrontal cortex mediates the association between catastrophizing and pain sensitivity. These findings highlight the role of the lateral prefrontal cortex in the pathophysiology of FM-related hyperalgesia and suggest that deficits in the recruitment of pain-inhibitory brain circuitry during pain-anticipatory periods may play an important contributory role in the association between various degrees of widespread hyperalgesia in FM and levels of catastrophizing, a well-validated measure of negative cognitions and psychological distress.Perspective This article highlights the presence of alterations in pain-anticipatory brain activity in FM. These findings provide the rationale for the development of psychological or neurofeedback-based techniques aimed at modifying patients' negative affect and cognitions toward pain.
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
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.
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?
Blacks are less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to report depression and anxiety, but Major Depressive Disorder is more chronic among Black individuals than Caucasians.
“Although Blacks are less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to report experiencing depression and anxiety, the chronicity of Major Depressive Disorder is higher among Black individuals than Caucasians, and Black patients are less likely to receive effective treatment and more likely than Whites to rate their depression as severe and disabling 237–241.”
From Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes (2018) · cites this paper as [240]
Black patients are less likely to receive effective treatment and more likely than Whites to rate their depression as severe and disabling.
“Black patients are less likely to receive effective treatment and more likely than Whites to rate their depression as severe and disabling 237–241.”
From Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes (2018) · cites this paper as [240]
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 55 · Cited by 74
- Authors
- Loggia, M. L., Berna, C., Kim, J., Cahalan, C. M., Martel, M.-O., Gollub, R. L., Wasan, A. D., Napadow, V., & Edwards, R. R.
- Affiliations
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Loggia, Marco L.
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Journal of Pain
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-08
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 692-699
- ISSN
- 1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4522376
- OpenAlex
- W2094953316
- Cited by
- 74
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7
- FWCI
- 7.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5k23da020681-04, 1s10rr021110-01a1, 1s10rr023043-01)
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG034982)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23DA20681, K23-DA020681)
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R21AR057920, R01AR064367)
- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (P41EB015896)
- National Center for Research Resources (S10-RR-023043, S10‐RR‐021110, S10RR023401)
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT004714, P01AT006663, R01AT005280, P01AT002048)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
- Keywords
- fibromyalgia, chronic pain, catastrophizing, negative thinking, lateral prefrontal cortex, pain anticipation, hyperalgesia, pain sensitivity, mediation analysis, neurofeedback
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cognition Disorders, Female, Fibromyalgia, Humans, Hyperalgesia, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Oxygen, Pain Measurement, Psychophysics, Pain Threshold, Prefrontal Cortex, Catastrophization, Chronic Pain
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