Cited by 253Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Placebo EffectPain Management and Treatment

Perceived Controllability Modulates the Neural Response to Pain

Open access
Salomons, Tim V., Johnstone, Tom, Backonja, Misha-Miroslav, Davidson, Richard J.·2004·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The response to painful stimulation depends not only on peripheral nociceptive input but also on the cognitive and affective context in which pain occurs. One contextual variable that affects the neural and behavioral response to nociceptive stimulation is the degree to which pain is perceived to be controllable. Previous studies indicate that perceived controllability affects pain tolerance, learning and motivation, and the ability to cope with intractable pain, suggesting that it has profound effects on neural pain processing. To date, however, no neuroimaging studies have assessed these effects. We manipulated the subjects' belief that they had control over a nociceptive stimulus, while the stimulus itself was held constant. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we found that pain that was perceived to be controllable resulted in attenuated activation in the three neural areas most consistently linked with pain processing: the anterior cingulate, insular, and secondary somatosensory cortices. This suggests that activation at these sites is modulated by cognitive variables, such as perceived controllability, and that pain imaging studies may therefore overestimate the degree to which these responses are stimulus driven and generalizable across cognitive contexts.

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.1315-04.2004

Cites

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?

  • Providing control or inducing perceived control reduces experienced intensity of painful stimuli.

    “A number of studies employing painful stimuli have found that providing control, or inducing perceived control, reduces the experienced intensity of the painful stimulus.”

    From Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience. (2016) · cites this paper as Salomons, Johnstone, Backonja, & Davidson, 2004

    The Behavioral results report virtually identical pain ratings in the uncontrollable and controllable conditions (7.19 versus 7.20), with no significant difference. The Discussion says the neural-activity differences were not attributable to a difference in perceived pain. Thus, this study does not find that perceived control reduced experienced pain intensity. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Perceived control in pain studies increases vmPFC activity.

    “Moreover, perceived control in these pain studies increases ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity (Salomons, Johnstone, Backonja, & Davidson, 2004).”

    From Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience. (2016) · cites this paper as Salomons, Johnstone, Backonja, & Davidson, 2004

    The fMRI section defines the reported contrast as uncontrollable minus controllable pain (UC − C). Table 1 lists prefrontal activation under that contrast, indicating greater activity with perceived uncontrollability, not an increase with perceived control. The paper does not identify a vmPFC increase. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 253

Authors
Salomons, T. V., Johnstone, T., Backonja, M.-M., & Davidson, R. J.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Davidson, Richard J.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2004-08-11
Volume
24
Issue
32
Pages
7199-7203
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2149150934
Cited by
253
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 8
FWCI
7.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH069315, MH069315)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
perceived controllability, pain perception, pain processing, anterior cingulate cortex, insula, secondary somatosensory cortex, nociception, pain tolerance, pain coping, cognitive modulation of pain
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Cues, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pain, Somatosensory Cortex

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