Cited by 298Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Placebo EffectPain Management and Treatment

Habituation to painful stimulation involves the antinociceptive system

Bingel, U., Schoell, E., Herken, W., Büchel, C., May, A.·2007·Pain

Abstract

The perception of pain results from an interaction between nociceptive and antinociceptive mechanisms. A better understanding of the neural circuitry underlying these physiological interactions provides an important opportunity to develop better treatment strategies for and ultimately even prevent pain. Here, we investigated how repeated painful stimulation over several days is processed, perceived and finally modulated in the healthy human brain. Twenty healthy subjects were stimulated daily with a 20min pain paradigm for 8 consecutive days, and functional MRI performed on days 1, 8 and 22. Repeated painful stimulation over several days resulted in substantially decreased pain ratings to identical painful stimuli. The decreased perception of pain over time is reflected in decreased BOLD responses to nociceptive stimuli in classical pain areas, including thalamus, insula, SII and the putamen. In contrast to this finding, we found that pain-related responses in the rACC, specifically the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC), significantly increased over time. Given this area's predominant role in endogenous pain control, this response pattern suggests that habituation to pain is at least in part mediated by increased antinociceptive activity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.005

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • Responses to a cue could change over the course of the experimental session due to factors such as fatigue, habituation or learning.

    “However, it is important to note that responses to a cue could change over the course of the experimental session due to factors such as fatigue, habituation or learning23–28.”

    From Boundary effects of expectation in human pain perception (2019) · cites this paper as [28]

  • Sensitivity to painful stimulation can vary over time.

    “Our interest in how perception changes across the experimental session was motivated by the observation that sensitivity to painful stimulation can vary over time15,16,28,29.”

    From Boundary effects of expectation in human pain perception (2019) · cites this paper as [28]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bingel, U., Schoell, E., Herken, W., Büchel, C., & May, A.
Affiliations
Universität Hamburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Bingel, U.
Venue
Pain
Published
2007-09
Volume
131
Issue
1
Pages
21-30
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2003102568
Cited by
298
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 20
FWCI
12.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Volkswagen Foundation
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
pain habituation, antinociception, endogenous pain control, subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, nociceptive processing, pain perception, thalamus, insula, somatosensory cortex, putamen
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory, Habituation, Psychophysiologic, Humans, Male, Pain, Physical Stimulation, Pain Threshold

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