Cited by 83Pain Management and Placebo EffectPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Treatment

Confidence in beliefs about pain predicts expectancy effects on pain perception and anticipatory processing in right anterior insula

Open access
Brown, Christopher A., Seymour, Ben, El-Deredy, Wael, Jones, Anthony K.P.·2008·Pain

Abstract

Psychological factors play a major role in exacerbating chronic pain. Effective self-management of pain is often hindered by inaccurate beliefs about the nature of pain which lead to a high degree of emotional reactivity. Probabilistic models of perception state that greater confidence (certainty) in beliefs increases their influence on perception and behavior. In this study, we treat confidence as a metacognitive process dissociable from the content of belief. We hypothesized that confidence is associated with anticipatory activation of areas of the pain matrix involved with top-down modulation of pain. Healthy volunteers rated their beliefs about the emotional distress that experimental pain would cause, and separately rated their level of confidence in this belief. Confidence predicted the influence of anticipation cues on experienced pain. We measured brain activity during anticipation of pain using high-density EEG and used electromagnetic tomography to determine neural substrates of this effect. Confidence correlated with activity in right anterior insula, posterior midcingulate and inferior parietal cortices during the anticipation of pain. Activity in the right anterior insula predicted a greater influence of anticipation cues on pain perception, whereas activity in right inferior parietal cortex predicted a decreased influence of anticipatory cues. The results support probabilistic models of pain perception and suggest that confidence in beliefs is an important determinant of expectancy effects on pain perception.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2008.04.028

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 54 · Cited by 83

Authors
Brown, C. A., Seymour, B., El-Deredy, W., & Jones, A. K. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB)
  • Salford Royal Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Brown, Christopher A.
Venue
Pain
Published
2008-10-15
Volume
139
Issue
2
Pages
324-332
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2130888019
Cited by
83
References
54
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Manchester
  • Versus Arthritis
  • Economic and Social Research Council (RES-538-28-1001)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
pain anticipation, belief confidence, metacognition, right anterior insula, inferior parietal cortex, experimental pain, chronic pain
MeSH terms
Attention, Cerebral Cortex, Cognition, Cues, Culture, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, 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