Cited by 35Pain Management and Placebo EffectPain Management and TreatmentTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

Baseline brain activity predicts response to neuromodulatory pain treatment

Open access
Jensen, Mark P., Sherlin, Leslie H., Fregni, Felipe, Gianas, Ann, Howe, Jon D., Hakimian, Shahin·2014·Pain Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the associations between baseline electroencephalogram (EEG)-assessed brain oscillations and subsequent response to four neuromodulatory treatments. Based on available research, we hypothesized that baseline theta oscillations would prospectively predict response to hypnotic analgesia. Analyses involving other oscillations and the other treatments (meditation, neurofeedback, and both active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation) were viewed as exploratory, given the lack of previous research examining brain oscillations as predictors of response to these other treatments. DESIGN: Randomized controlled study of single sessions of four neuromodulatory pain treatments and a control procedure. METHODS: Thirty individuals with spinal cord injury and chronic pain had their EEG recorded before each session of four active treatments (hypnosis, meditation, EEG biofeedback, transcranial direct current stimulation) and a control procedure (sham transcranial direct stimulation). RESULTS: As hypothesized, more presession theta power was associated with greater response to hypnotic analgesia. In exploratory analyses, we found that less baseline alpha power predicted pain reduction with meditation. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the idea that different patients respond to different pain treatments and that between-person treatment response differences are related to brain states as measured by EEG. The results have implications for the possibility of enhancing pain treatment response by either 1) better patient/treatment matching or 2) influencing brain activity before treatment is initiated in order to prepare patients to respond. Research is needed to replicate and confirm the findings in additional samples of individuals with chronic 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 · 10.1111/pme.12546

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?

  • The pilot findings align with hypotheses that theta oscillations and reduced left anterior brain activity may help facilitate hypnosis response.

    “These preliminary findings are consistent with hypotheses regarding the role that theta oscillations and inhibition of left anterior brain activity may play in facilitating response to hypnosis.[37, 39]”

    From The chronic pain skills study: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing hypnosis, mindfulness meditation and pain education in Veterans (2020) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Primary Study Hypothesis section (p. 4) reports that higher baseline theta activity predicted pain reduction with hypnosis. Exploratory Analyses (p. 5) also report that lower gamma activity at left anterior electrodes predicted response to hypnosis. The paper does not establish that this finding represents inhibition of left anterior brain activity or that such inhibition facilitates response; the Limitations section (p. 7) cautions against strong interpretations of the exploratory result. (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

2 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jensen, M. P., Sherlin, L. H., Fregni, F., Gianas, A., Howe, J. D., & Hakimian, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Pain Medicine
Published
2014-12
Volume
15
Issue
12
Pages
2055-2063
ISSN
  • 1526-2375 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4637
OpenAlex
W1907976367
Cited by
35
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pain Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Washington
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R21HD058049)
  • National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
treatment response prediction, EEG oscillations, theta power, alpha power, hypnotic analgesia, meditation, neurofeedback, transcranial direct current stimulation, spinal cord injury, chronic pain, patient-treatment matching
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Brain, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Hypnosis, Male, Middle Aged, Spinal Cord Injuries, Cross-Over Studies, Meditation, Young Adult, Neurofeedback, Chronic Pain, Pain Management, Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

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