Cited by 238Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Placebo EffectNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Anticipatory coping of pain expressed in the human anterior cingulate cortex: a positron emission tomography study

Hsieh, Jen-Chuen, Stone-Elander, Sharon, Ingvar, Martin·1999·Neuroscience Letters

Abstract

We used positron emission tomography (PET) to monitor the regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) as an index of brain activity in regions proposed to participate in affective-motivational and cognitive-evaluative dimensions of pain during anticipation of a noxious stimulation. Specifically we were interested in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) and the periaqueductal grey (PAG). Anticipating an unpredictable and unlearned pain stimulus activated the right ACC, the VMPFC and the PAG while anticipating a learned pain-stimulus resulted in a decreased activity in the ACC and the VMPFC. These patterns are compatible with two facets of affect-laden cognitive coping: alertness and attention-distraction. The right-preponderant expression of the changes in the ACC supports the hypothesis of a preferential role of the non-dominant hemisphere in negative emotional processing. The data demonstrate an anticipatory coping mechanism and illustrate a neurophysiological process underlying the modulation of attention to pain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0304-3940(99)00060-9

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • In Hsieh et al., subjects who had participated in multiple practice sessions in which a pain stimulus was delivered showed decreased activity in the caudal ACC and subgenual ACC while waiting to receive the stimulus, whereas those who had not had this experience showed increased activity in the same areas.

    “Subjects who had participated in multiple practice sessions in which a pain stimulus was delivered showed decreased activity in the caudal ACC and subgenual ACC while waiting to receive the stimulus, whereas those who had not had this experience showed increased activity in the same areas.”
  • Hsieh et al. have reported that brain activation during the anticipation of pain might depend on experience.

    “have reported that brain activation during the anticipation of pain might depend on experience.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hsieh, J.-C., Stone-Elander, S., & Ingvar, M.
Affiliations
Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
Corresponding author
Hsieh, Jen-Chuen
Venue
Neuroscience Letters
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-02
Volume
262
Issue
1
Pages
61-64
ISSN
0304-3940 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2123574770
Cited by
238
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 6
FWCI
6.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
pain anticipation, anterior cingulate cortex, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, periaqueductal gray, regional cerebral blood flow, attentional modulation of pain, hemispheric lateralization, non-dominant hemisphere, pain coping
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Cerebral Cortex, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, Tomography, Emission-Computed

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