Cited by 111Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and TreatmentEmbodied and Extended Cognition

Pain: A Statistical Account

Open access
Tabor, Abby, Thacker, Michael A., Moseley, G. Lorimer, Körding, Konrad P.·2017·PLOS Computational Biology

Abstract

Perception is seen as a process that utilises partial and noisy information to construct a coherent understanding of the world. Here we argue that the experience of pain is no different; it is based on incomplete, multimodal information, which is used to estimate potential bodily threat. We outline a Bayesian inference model, incorporating the key components of cue combination, causal inference, and temporal integration, which highlights the statistical problems in everyday perception. It is from this platform that we are able to review the pain literature, providing evidence from experimental, acute, and persistent phenomena to demonstrate the advantages of adopting a statistical account in pain. Our probabilistic conceptualisation suggests a principles-based view of pain, explaining a broad range of experimental and clinical findings and making testable predictions.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005142

Cites

71 of 71 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?

  • Current perspectives on the perceptual mechanism behind expectation effects suggest that an agent maintains multiple potential hypotheses about the cause of a sensory input, and selects the one which best represents the incoming sensory information at any given time.

    “Current perspectives on the perceptual mechanism behind expectation effects10,35–38 suggest that an agent maintains multiple potential hypotheses about the cause of a sensory input, and selects the one which best represents the incoming sensory information at any given time.”

    From Boundary effects of expectation in human pain perception (2019) · cites this paper as [37]

  • In contemporary theories of perception, the influence of expectation on perceived pain is also modulated by the certainty (the inverse variability) of the pain stimulus intensity.

    “Finally, in contemporary theories of perception, the influence of expectation on perceived pain is also modulated by the certainty (the inverse variability) of the pain stimulus intensity10,35,37,55,56.”

    From Boundary effects of expectation in human pain perception (2019) · cites this paper as [37]

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

3 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [12]Trommershauser J, Kording KP, Landy MS. Sensory Cue Integration. Sensory Cue Integration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2011.
  2. [63]Cornsweet T. Visual Perception. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1970.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tabor, A., Thacker, M. A., Moseley, G. L., & Körding, K. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Bath (GB)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
Venue
PLOS Computational Biology
Published
2017-01-12
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
e1005142
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2573967569
Cited by
111
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3
FWCI
1.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Open (London South Bank University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Open (London South Bank University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS063399)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
Keywords
pain perception, Bayesian inference, cue combination, causal inference, temporal integration, multimodal data, acute pain, chronic pain
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Humans, Models, Neurological, Pain, Models, Statistical, Pain Perception

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