Cited by 439Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorPain Management and Placebo Effect

Opponent appetitive-aversive neural processes underlie predictive learning of pain relief

Open access
Seymour, Ben, O'Doherty, John P, Koltzenburg, Martin, Wiech, Katja, Frackowiak, Richard, Friston, Karl, Dolan, Raymond·2005·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Termination of a painful or unpleasant event can be rewarding. However, whether the brain treats relief in a similar way as it treats natural reward is unclear, and the neural processes that underlie its representation as a motivational goal remain poorly understood. We used fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) to investigate how humans learn to generate expectations of pain relief. Using a pavlovian conditioning procedure, we show that subjects experiencing prolonged experimentally induced pain can be conditioned to predict pain relief. This proceeds in a manner consistent with contemporary reward-learning theory (average reward/loss reinforcement learning), reflected by neural activity in the amygdala and midbrain. Furthermore, these reward-like learning signals are mirrored by opposite aversion-like signals in lateral orbitofrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex. This dual coding has parallels to 'opponent process' theories in psychology and promotes a formal account of prediction and expectation during pain.

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 · 10.1038/nn1527

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • Relaxation, anxiety, pleasant body sensations, and desire for opioids were measured via validated single items rated on a numeric rating scale (0-10).

    “Secondary outcomes were measured via validated single items assessing relaxation, 25 anxiety, 22 pleasant body sensations, 26 and desire for opioids, 27 all rated on a numeric rating scale (0 -10) to minimize patient confusion.”

    From Randomized Controlled Trial of Brief Mindfulness Training and Hypnotic Suggestion for Acute Pain Relief in the Hospital Setting. (2017) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Subjects section (page unavailable) describes a single 0–10 rating of how pleasant participants found cooling-induced pain relief, supporting the citation attached to pleasant body sensations. It does not establish that the item was validated or that it measured pleasant body sensations more generally. The other outcomes have separate citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • lOFC represents aversive error-signals.

    “These results are in line with findings that lOFC represents aversive error-signals (Seymour et al., 2005).”

    From Top-Down Dysregulation—From ADHD to Emotional Instability (2016) · cites this paper as Seymour et al., 2005

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Houk, J.C., Davis, J.L. & Beiser, D.G.) 215-232 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J. P., Koltzenburg, M., Wiech, K., Frackowiak, R., Friston, K., & Dolan, R.
Affiliations
  • National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Fondazione Santa Lucia (IT)
Corresponding author
Seymour, Ben
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2005-08-21
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
1234-1240
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2132473069
Cited by
439
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 23
FWCI
9.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
analgesia, classical conditioning, reward learning, aversion, opponent process theory, pain anticipation, amygdala, midbrain, lateral orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, reinforcement learning
MeSH terms
Avoidance Learning, Behavior Therapy, Brain, Capsaicin, Conditioning, Psychological, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Biological, Oxygen, Pain, Pain Measurement, Reward, Time Factors, Statistics, Nonparametric, Pain Management

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