Cited by 389Pain Management and Placebo EffectPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Treatment

Brain mediators of predictive cue effects on perceived pain

Open access
Atlas, Lauren Y., Bolger, Niall, Lindquist, Martin A., Wager, Tor D.·2010·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Information about upcoming pain strongly influences pain experience in experimental and clinical settings, but little is known about the brain mechanisms that link expectation and experience. To identify the pathways by which informational cues influence perception, analyses must jointly consider both the effects of cues on brain responses and the relationship between brain responses and changes in reported experience. Our task and analysis strategy were designed to test these relationships. Auditory cues elicited expectations for barely painful or highly painful thermal stimulation, and we assessed how cues influenced human subjects' pain reports and brain responses to matched levels of noxious heat using functional magnetic resonance imaging. We used multilevel mediation analysis to identify brain regions that (1) are modulated by predictive cues, (2) predict trial-to-trial variations in pain reports, and (3) formally mediate the relationship between cues and reported pain. Cues influenced heat-evoked responses in most canonical pain-processing regions, including both medial and lateral pain pathways. Effects on several regions correlated with pretask expectations, suggesting that expectancy plays a prominent role. A subset of pain-processing regions, including anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, and thalamus, formally mediated cue effects on pain. Effects on these regions were in turn mediated by cue-evoked anticipatory activity in the medial orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and ventral striatum, areas not previously directly implicated in nociception. These results suggest that activity in pain-processing regions reflects a combination of nociceptive input and top-down information related to expectations, and that anticipatory processes in OFC and striatum may play a key role in modulating pain processing.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.0057-10.2010

Cites

110 of 110 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?

  • Automated meta-analyses of working memory, emotion, and pain converge markedly with previously published meta- or mega-analytic maps, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

    “Comparison of automated meta-analyses of three broad psychological terms (‘working memory’, ‘emotion’, and ‘pain’) with previously published meta- or mega-analytic maps14-16 revealed a marked convergence between approaches both qualitatively (Fig. 2) and quantitatively (Supplementary Fig. 5).”
  • The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is implicated in integrating incoming nociceptive signals with the expectation of pain.

    “the DLPFC has been implicated in integrating incoming nociceptive signals with the expectation of pain4”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Atlas, L. Y., Bolger, N., Lindquist, M. A., & Wager, T. D.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2010-09-29
Volume
30
Issue
39
Pages
12964-12977
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2008961184
Cited by
389
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 27
FWCI
12.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0631637)
  • National Institutes of Health (MH076136, RR009784)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH076136)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA027794)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P41RR009784)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
pain anticipation, predictive cues, pain perception, anticipatory activity, medial orbitofrontal cortex, ventral striatum, anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, thalamus, nociception, thermal pain, pain processing, top-down expectations
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Cognition, Cues, Female, Hot Temperature, Humans, Male, Pain, Perception, Physical Stimulation, Pain Threshold

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