Cited by 300Pain Management and Placebo EffectPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsMemory and Neural Mechanisms

How the number of learning trials affects placebo and nocebo responses

Open access
Colloca, Luana, Petrovic, Predrag, Wager, Tor D., Ingvar, Martin, Benedetti, Fabrizio·2010·Pain

Abstract

Conditioning procedures are used in many placebo studies because evidence suggests that conditioning-related placebo responses are usually more robust than those induced by verbal suggestions alone. However, it has not been shown whether there is a causal relation between the number of conditioning trials and the resistance to extinction of placebo and nocebo responses. Here we test the effects of either one or four sessions of conditioning on the modulation of both non-painful and painful stimuli delivered to the dorsum of the foot. Placebo and nocebo manipulations were obtained by pairing green or red light to a series of stimuli that were made lower or higher with respect to a yellow light associated with a series of control stimuli. Subjects were told that the lights would indicate a treatment that would reduce or increase non-painful and painful stimuli to the foot. They were randomly assigned to either Group 1 or 2. Group 1 underwent one session of conditioning and Group 2 received four sessions of conditioning. We found that one session of conditioning (Group 1) induced nocebo responses, but not placebo responses in no pain condition. After one session of conditioning, we observed both nocebo and placebo responses to painful stimulation. However, these effects extinguished over time. Conversely, four sessions of conditioning (Group 2) induced robust placebo and nocebo responses to both non-painful and painful stimuli that persisted over the entire experiment. These findings suggest that the strength of learning may be clinically important for producing long-lasting placebo effects.

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.pain.2010.08.007

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • Behavioral measures alone have been used in most direct comparisons of placebo and nocebo effects.

    “Most of these studies have involved behavioral measures only (Benedetti et al., 2014; Benedetti et al., 2003; Colloca et al., 2010; Colloca et al., 2008).”

    From Distinct neural representations of placebo and nocebo effects (2015) · cites this paper as Colloca et al., 2010

  • Direct comparisons of placebo and nocebo effects are rare.

    “To date, only a few studies have directly compared placebo and nocebo effects.”

    From Distinct neural representations of placebo and nocebo effects (2015) · cites this paper as Colloca et al., 2010

  • Factors such as conditioning, psychosocial context, facilitator attention, setting, posture, and demand characteristics might mediate health gains attributed to mindfulness meditation.

    “Nonspecific and potentially confounding variables, such as conditioning effects, psychosocial contexts, facilitator attention, intervention setting, body posture, and/or demand characteristics associated with the belief that one is practicing meditation,15, 27, 135 could mediate mindfulness meditation–related health improvements.136, 137”
  • Negative expectations induced by medical staff lead to the formation of nocebo effects.

    “Indeed, negative expectations that are induced by the medical staff also lead to the formation of nocebo effects.15,31”
  • These findings fit with the notion that optimism and anxiety modulate nocebo, as well as placebo, responses.

    “These findings well fit with the notion that optimism and anxiety modulate nocebo, as well as placebo, responses12252641.”

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
Colloca, L., Petrovic, P., Wager, T. D., Ingvar, M., & Benedetti, F.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • University of Turin (IT)
Corresponding author
Colloca, Luana
Venue
Pain
Published
2010-11
Volume
151
Issue
2
Pages
430-439
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2163724593
Cited by
300
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 12
FWCI
8.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • International Association for the Study of Pain
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 AT999999)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
placebo response, nocebo effect, classical conditioning, extinction, pain perception, foot dorsum, verbal suggestion
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Conditioning, Psychological, Electric Stimulation, Female, Humans, Male, Pain, Pain Measurement, Photic Stimulation, Placebos, Psychological Tests, Psychophysics, Statistics as Topic, Time Factors, Placebo Effect, Pain Threshold, 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