Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 572

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electrical stimulation of motor cortex for pain control: a combined PET-scan and electrophysiological study

García-Larrea, L, Peyron, R, Mertens, P, Gregoire, C M., Lavenne, F, Le Bars, D, Convers, P, Mauguière, F, Sindou, M, Laurent, B·1999·Pain

Abstract

Although electrical stimulation of the precentral gyrus (MCS) is emerging as a promising technique for pain control, its mechanisms of action remain obscure, and its application largely empirical. Using positron emission tomography (PET) we studied regional changes in cerebral flood flow (rCBF) in 10 patients undergoing motor cortex stimulation for pain control, seven of whom also underwent somatosensory evoked potentials and nociceptive spinal reflex recordings. The most significant MCS-related increase in rCBF concerned the ventral-lateral thalamus, probably reflecting cortico-thalamic connections from motor areas. CBF increases were also observed in medial thalamus, anterior cingulate/orbitofrontal cortex, anterior insula and upper brainstem; conversely, no significant CBF changes appeared in motor areas beneath the stimulating electrode. Somatosensory evoked potentials from SI remained stable during MCS, and no rCBF changes were observed in somatosensory cortex during the procedure. Our results suggest that descending axons, rather than apical dendrites, are primarily activated by MCS, and highlight the thalamus as the key structure mediating functional MCS effects. A model of MCS action is proposed, whereby activation of thalamic nuclei directly connected with motor and premotor cortices would entail a cascade of synaptic events in pain-related structures receiving afferents from these nuclei, including the medial thalamus, anterior cingulate and upper brainstem. MCS could influence the affective-emotional component of chronic pain by way of cingulate/orbitofrontal activation, and lead to descending inhibition of pain impulses by activation of the brainstem, also suggested by attenuation of spinal flexion reflexes. In contrast, the hypothesis of somatosensory cortex activation by MCS could not be confirmed by our results.

Overview

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/s0304-3959(99)00114-1

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 65 references

Cited by

See all 572

Metadata

Authors
García-Larrea, L., Peyron, R., Mertens, P., Gregoire, C. M., Lavenne, F., Le Bars, D., Convers, P., Mauguière, F., Sindou, M., & Laurent, B.
Venue
Pain
Published
1999-11
Volume
83
Issue
2
Pages
259-273
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088132969
Cited by
572
References
65
FWCI
8.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Electrical stimulation of motor cortex for pain control: a combined PET-scan and electrophysiological study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00114-1
The paper
García-Larrea, L., Peyron, R., Mertens, P., Gregoire, C. M., Lavenne, F., Le Bars, D., Convers, P., Mauguière, F., Sindou, M., & Laurent, B. (1999). Electrical stimulation of motor cortex for pain control: a combined PET-scan and electrophysiological study. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00114-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.