Cited by 446Pain Management and Placebo EffectNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

How Placebos Change the Patient's Brain

Open access
Benedetti, Fabrizio, Carlino, Elisa, Pollo, Antonella·2011·Neuropsychopharmacology

Abstract

Although placebos have long been considered a nuisance in clinical research, today they represent an active and productive field of research and, because of the involvement of many mechanisms, the study of the placebo effect can actually be viewed as a melting pot of concepts and ideas for neuroscience. Indeed, there exists not a single but many placebo effects, with different mechanisms and in different systems, medical conditions, and therapeutic interventions. For example, brain mechanisms of expectation, anxiety, and reward are all involved, as well as a variety of learning phenomena, such as Pavlovian conditioning, cognitive, and social learning. There is also some experimental evidence of different genetic variants in placebo responsiveness. The most productive models to better understand the neurobiology of the placebo effect are pain and Parkinson's disease. In these medical conditions, the neural networks that are involved have been identified: that is, the opioidergic-cholecystokinergic-dopaminergic modulatory network in pain and part of the basal ganglia circuitry in Parkinson's disease. Important clinical implications emerge from these recent advances in placebo research. First, as the placebo effect is basically a psychosocial context effect, these data indicate that different social stimuli, such as words and rituals of the therapeutic act, may change the chemistry and circuitry of the patient's brain. Second, the mechanisms that are activated by placebos are the same as those activated by drugs, which suggests a cognitive/affective interference with drug action. Third, if prefrontal functioning is impaired, placebo responses are reduced or totally lacking, as occurs in dementia of the Alzheimer's type.

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/npp.2010.81

Cites

136 of 136 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?

  • Expectations could modulate reinforcement signals, and if such manipulations affect the reinforcement signal used in calculating prediction errors, it would short-circuit learning by suppressing cue-inconsistent prediction errors.

    “If these manipulations affect the reinforcement signal used in calculating prediction errors, it would short-circuit learning by suppressing cue-inconsistent prediction errors.”

    From Social information creates self-fulfilling prophecies in judgments of pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort (2026) · cites this paper as [38]

    The “Expectation of Reward” section says expectations can induce changes through reward mechanisms and that dopamine neurons respond to deviations from predicted outcomes. It does not say that these changes suppress cue-inconsistent prediction errors or short-circuit learning; that proposed consequence is unsupported by the cited paper. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 137 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Benedetti, F., Carlino, E., & Pollo, A.
Affiliations
University of Turin (IT)
Corresponding author
Benedetti, Fabrizio
Venue
Neuropsychopharmacology
Published
2010-06-30
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
339-354
ISSN
  • 0893-133X (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-634X
OpenAlex
W2019039429
Cited by
446
References
137
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 25
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Compagnia di San Paolo
  • Volkswagen Foundation
  • Regione Piemonte
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
placebo effect, expectations, anxiety, reward, classical conditioning, social learning, cognitive learning, genetic variants, pain, Parkinson's disease, basal ganglia, drug interactions, prefrontal cortex, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, healing rituals
MeSH terms
Affect, Animals, Brain, Brain Chemistry, Cognition, Humans, Mental Processes, Neural Pathways, Pain, Parkinson Disease, Placebos, Placebo Effect

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