Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 580

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

Haemodynamic brain responses to acute pain in humans

Open access
Peyron, Roland, García-Larrea, Luis, Grégoire, Marie-Claude, Costes, Nicolas, Convers, Philippe, Lavenne, F., Mauguière, Francıois, Michel, Daniel, Laurent, Bernard·1999·Brain

Abstract

Turning attention towards or away from a painful heat stimulus is known to modify both the subjective intensity of pain and the cortical evoked potentials to noxious stimuli. Using PET, we investigated in 12 volunteers whether pain-related regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) changes were also modulated by attention. High (mean 46.6 degrees C) or low (mean 39 degrees C) intensity thermal stimuli were applied to the hand under three attentional conditions: (i) attention directed towards the stimuli, (ii) attention diverted from the stimuli, and (iii) no task. Only the insular/second somatosensory cortices were found to respond whatever the attentional context and might, therefore, subserve the sensory-discriminative dimension of pain (intensity coding). In parallel, other rCBF changes previously described as 'pain-related' appeared to depend essentially on the attentional context. Attention to the thermal stimulus involved a large network which was primarily right-sided, including prefrontal, posterior parietal, anterior cingulate cortices and thalamus. Anterior cingulate activity was not found to pertain to the intensity coding network but rather to the attentional neural activity triggered by pain. The attentional network disclosed in this study could be further subdivided into a non-specific arousal component, involving thalamic and upper brainstem regions, and a selective attention and orientating component including prefrontal, posterior parietal and cingulate cortices. A further effect observed in response to high intensity stimuli was a rCBF decrease within the somatosensory cortex ipsilateral to stimulation, which was considered to reflect contrast enhancing and/or anticipation processes. Attentional processes could possibly explain part of the variability observed in previous PET reports and should therefore be considered in further studies on pain in both normal subjects and patients with chronic pain.

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 · 10.1093/brain/122.9.1765

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 580

Metadata

Authors
Peyron, R., García-Larrea, L., Grégoire, M.-C., Costes, N., Convers, P., Lavenne, F., Mauguière, F., Michel, D., & Laurent, B.
Venue
Brain
Published
1999-09
Volume
122
Issue
9
Pages
1765-1780
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2110401381
Cited by
580
References
65
FWCI
9.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Haemodynamic brain responses to acute pain in humans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/122.9.1765
The paper
Peyron, R., García-Larrea, L., Grégoire, M.-C., Costes, N., Convers, P., Lavenne, F., Mauguière, F., Michel, D., & Laurent, B. (1999). Haemodynamic brain responses to acute pain in humans. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/122.9.1765

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.