The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Brain mechanisms supporting violated expectations of pain
Open accessAbstract
The subjective experience of pain is influenced by interactions between experiences, future predictions, and incoming afferent information. Expectations of high pain can exacerbate pain, whereas expectations of low pain during a consistently noxious stimulus can produce significant reductions in pain. However, the brain mechanisms associated with processing mismatches between expected and experienced pain are poorly understood, but are important for imparting salience to a sensory event to override erroneous top-down expectancy-mediated information. This investigation examined pain-related brain activation when expectations of pain were abruptly violated. After conditioning participants to cues predicting low or high pain, 10 incorrectly cued stimuli were administered across 56 stimulus trials to determine whether expectations would be less influential on pain when there is a high discordance between prestimulus cues and corresponding thermal stimulation. Incorrectly cued stimuli produced pain ratings and pain-related brain activation consistent with placebo analgesia, nocebo hyperalgesia, and violated expectations. Violated expectations of pain were associated with activation in distinct regions of the inferior parietal lobe, including the supramarginal and angular gyrus, and intraparietal sulcus, the superior parietal lobe, cerebellum, and occipital lobe. Thus, violated expectations of pain engage mechanisms supporting salience-driven sensory discrimination, working memory, and associative learning processes. By overriding the influence of expectations on pain, these brain mechanisms are likely engaged in clinical situations in which patients' unrealistic expectations of pain relief diminish the efficacy of pain treatments. Accordingly, these findings underscore the importance of maintaining realistic expectations to augment the effectiveness of pain management.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“It can reasonably be construed, then, that this experiential acceptance should reduce expectations of impending noxious stimuli that could exacerbate the pain experience.64,140”
From The neural mechanisms of mindfulness-based pain relief: a functional magnetic resonance imaging-based review and primer (2019) · cites this paper as [140]
In the citing paper
“Pain relief produced by these cognitive techniques are associated with significant reductions in pain-related brain activation (i.e., SI, SII, posterior insula, parietal operculum) and activation in higher-order brain regions, such as the ACC, PFC, and insula.86, 89, 98–110”
From Mindfulness meditation-based pain relief: a mechanistic account (2016) · cites this paper as [101]
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
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 64 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Zeidan, F., Lobanov, O. V., Kraft, R. A., & Coghill, R. C.
- Affiliations
- Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
- Corresponding author
- Coghill, Robert C.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 156
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1772-1785
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4545679
- OpenAlex
- W2416487493
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Wake Forest School of Medicine
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01 NS 39426, R01NS039426)
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (L30 AT006838, F32AT006949, K99AT008238)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
- Keywords
- pain anticipation, expectancy violation, placebo analgesia, nocebo hyperalgesia, inferior parietal lobule, supramarginal gyrus, angular gyrus, intraparietal sulcus, superior parietal lobule, cerebellum, occipital lobe, thermal pain, working memory, associative learning, pain management
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Brain, Cues, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Pain, Pain Measurement, Physical Stimulation, Psychophysics, Young Adult, Healthy Volunteers, Nocebo 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