Cited by 284Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPain Management and Placebo EffectPain Mechanisms and Treatments

Mindfulness meditation-related pain relief: evidence for unique brain mechanisms in the regulation of pain

Open access
Zeidan, F., Grant, J.A., Brown, C.A., McHaffie, J.G., Coghill, R.C.·2012·Neuroscience Letters

Abstract

The cognitive modulation of pain is influenced by a number of factors ranging from attention, beliefs, conditioning, expectations, mood, and the regulation of emotional responses to noxious sensory events. Recently, mindfulness meditation has been found attenuate pain through some of these mechanisms including enhanced cognitive and emotional control, as well as altering the contextual evaluation of sensory events. This review discusses the brain mechanisms involved in mindfulness meditation-related pain relief across different meditative techniques, expertise and training levels, experimental procedures, and neuroimaging methodologies. Converging lines of neuroimaging evidence reveal that mindfulness meditation-related pain relief is associated with unique appraisal cognitive processes depending on expertise level and meditation tradition. Moreover, it is postulated that mindfulness meditation-related pain relief may share a common final pathway with other cognitive techniques in the modulation of 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.03.082

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zeidan, F., Grant, J. A., Brown, C. A., McHaffie, J. G., & Coghill, R. C.
Affiliations
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Zeidan, F.
Venue
Neuroscience Letters
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-06
Volume
520
Issue
2
Pages
165-173
ISSN
0304-3940 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2064069127
Cited by
284
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS-39426, R01NS039426)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
mindfulness meditation, analgesia, pain modulation, cognitive appraisal of pain, neural mechanisms, emotion regulation, attention
MeSH terms
Attention, Brain, Humans, Pain, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Meditation, Pain Management, Neuroimaging

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