Cited by 844Pain Management and Placebo EffectPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health

Open access
Wager, Tor D., Atlas, Lauren Y.·2015·Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Abstract

Placebo effects are beneficial effects that are attributable to the brain-mind responses to the context in which a treatment is delivered rather than to the specific actions of the drug. They are mediated by diverse processes--including learning, expectations and social cognition--and can influence various clinical and physiological outcomes related to health. Emerging neuroscience evidence implicates multiple brain systems and neurochemical mediators, including opioids and dopamine. We present an empirical review of the brain systems that are involved in placebo effects, focusing on placebo analgesia, and a conceptual framework linking these findings to the mind-brain processes that mediate them. This framework suggests that the neuropsychological processes that mediate placebo effects may be crucial for a wide array of therapeutic approaches, including many drugs.

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/nrn3976

Cites

224 of 224 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 [44]

    In “Understanding the role of conceptual processes” (page unavailable), the paper says prior beliefs shape reward learning and suggestions may influence credit assignment. “Self-reinforcing placebo effects?” (page unavailable) proposes that experiences inconsistent with prior beliefs may be discarded. These passages support the general idea of suppressing disconfirmatory feedback, but do not establish that the manipulations alter the reinforcement signal used to calculate prediction errors. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • dlPFC is especially important for top-down regulation of treatment and placebo expectancies, whereas mPFC plays a key role in encoding value of expected outcomes.

    “In particular, dlPFC regions appear especially important for exerting top-downregulation of treatment and placebo expectancies, whereas mPFC regions play a key role in encoding value of expected outcomes [218,219].”

    From Prefrontal cortex and depression (2022) · cites this paper as [218]

    In “Placebos engage endogenous pain modulation circuitry” (page unavailable), the review links dlPFC activity and stimulation to placebo analgesia, but does not specifically assign dlPFC a role in top-down regulation of treatment and placebo expectancies. In “Different mechanisms for different outcomes?” (page unavailable), it links vmPFC responses to valuation and beliefs, but does not establish that mPFC encodes the value of expected outcomes as stated. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • lOFC has been activated in several placebo treatment studies, often in co-activation with rACC.

    “The lOFC has been activated in several placebo treatment studies (often in co-activation with rACC) as indicated by meta-analysis (Atlas and Wager, 2014; Wager and Atlas, 2015; Figure 6A) including placebo analgesia (Petrovic et al., 2002; Lieberman et al., 2004; Wager et al., 2004) and emotional placebo (Petrovic et al., 2005).”

    From Top-Down Dysregulation—From ADHD to Emotional Instability (2016) · cites this paper as Wager and Atlas, 2015

    The Neuroimaging evidence section reports placebo-related increases in the mid-lateral OFC across several pain studies and also identifies increases in the rostral cingulate. It does not establish that the two regions were often co-activated in the same studies, or extend the lateral-OFC finding to emotional placebo studies. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In placebo analgesia, expecting low pain decreases pain perception and associated brain activity.

    “For example, in placebo analgesia, expecting low pain decreases pain perception and associated brain activity6–11.”

    From Boundary effects of expectation in human pain perception (2019) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Placebo effects involve the expectation or belief that a sham treatment is effective in changing response without relying on top-down control processes.

    “Placebo effects involve the expectation or belief that a sham treatment is effective in changing the way one will respond to a stimulus without relying on top-down control processes to cause placebo-related changes in response to a stimulus (Wager and Atlas, 2015).”

    From Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: a multi-level framework (2017) · cites this paper as Wager and Atlas, 2015

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]Committee on Advancing Pain Research, Care, and Education Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 1 350 The National Academies Press 2011 22553896
  2. [103]Atlas LY Wager TD Placebo Benedetti F Enck P Frisaldi E Schedlowski M 37 69 Springer 2014
  3. [119]Heinricher M Fields H Wall & Melzack’s Textbook of Pain McMahon S Koltzenburg M Tracey I Turk DC 129 142 Elsevier Health Sciences 2013

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wager, T. D., & Atlas, L. Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Wager, Tor D.
Venue
Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Published
2015-06-19
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
403-418
ISSN
  • 1471-003X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0048
OpenAlex
W1518596071
Cited by
844
References
224
Citations by year
2026: 86 · 2025: 105 · 2024: 98 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 89 · 2021: 96 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 4
FWCI
4.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH076136)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA027794)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
placebo effect, placebo analgesia, expectations, learning, social cognition, opioids, dopamine, brain systems
MeSH terms
Brain, Humans, Learning, Mental Processes, Neural Pathways, Neurosciences, Placebo Effect, 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