Cited by 94Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Placebo EffectPain Management and Treatment

The interaction of emotion and pain in the insula and secondary somatosensory cortex.

Orenius, Tage I., Raij, Tuukka T., Nuortimo, Antti, Näätänen, Petri, Lipsanen, Jari, Karlsson, Hasse·2017·Neuroscience

Abstract

Pain is processed in a large neural network that partially overlaps structures involved in emotion processing. Despite the fact that pain and emotion are known to share neural regions and interact in numerous clinical conditions, relatively little is known about the interaction of pain and emotion at the neural level. This study on healthy adults aimed to investigate the interaction between negative and positive emotional stimuli and experimental pain in an essential pain processing network. Sixteen healthy young adult subjects were exposed to pictures from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) with negative, neutral or positive valence, along with laser pain stimuli. The stimuli were pseudo-randomly arranged in three 15-min experiment series comprising 49 stimuli each (picture, laser or simultaneous picture and laser stimuli). The whole-brain blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal was acquired using 3T functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). As expected, the pain stimulus elicited activation in the secondary somatosensory cortex (SII), insula and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) when compared to the baseline. The interaction of negative emotion and laser stimuli related to the activation of the left SII. The interaction of positive emotion and pain stimuli led to bilateral activation of the SII and left insula. These findings reveal interaction in parts of the pain processing network during simultaneous emotion and physical pain. We demonstrated a valence-independent interaction of emotion and pain in SII.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.02.047

Cites

50 of 50 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
Orenius, T. I., Raij, T. T., Nuortimo, A., Näätänen, P., Lipsanen, J., & Karlsson, H.
Affiliations
  • Tekonivelsairaala Orton (FI)
  • Helsinki University Hospital (FI)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • University of Turku (FI)
Corresponding author
Orenius, Tage I.
Venue
Neuroscience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-05
Volume
349
Pages
185-194
ISSN
0306-4522 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2594279035
Cited by
94
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation
  • ORTON Research Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
insula, secondary somatosensory cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, experimental pain, emotional valence, affective picture stimuli
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Emotions, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pain, Somatosensory Cortex, Young Adult

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