Cited by 346Pain Management and Placebo EffectPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Treatment

Isolating the modulatory effect of expectation on pain transmission: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study

Open access
Keltner, John R., Furst, Ansgar, Fan, Catherine, Redfern, Rick, Inglis, Ben, Fields, Howard L.·2006·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

We use a novel balanced experimental design to specifically investigate brain mechanisms underlying the modulating effect of expected pain intensity on afferent nociceptive processing and pain perception. We used two visual cues, each conditioned to one of two noxious thermal stimuli [∼48°C (high) or 47°C (low)]. The visual cues were presented just before and during application of the noxious thermal stimulus. Subjects reported significantly higher pain when the noxious stimulus was preceded by the high-intensity visual cue. To control for expectancy effects, for one-half of the runs, the noxious thermal stimuli were accompanied by the cue conditioned to the other stimulus. Comparing functional magnetic resonance imaging blood oxygenation level-dependent activations produced by the high and low thermal stimulus intensities presented with the high-intensity visual cue showed significant activations in nociceptive regions of the thalamus, second somatosensory cortex, and insular cortex. To isolate the effect of expectancy, we compared activations produced by the two visual cues presented with the high-intensity noxious thermal stimulus; this showed significant differences in the ipsilateral caudal anterior cingulate cortex, the head of the caudate, cerebellum, and the contralateral nucleus cuneiformis (nCF). We propose that pain intensity expectancy modulates activations produced by noxious stimuli through a distinct modulatory network that converges with afferent nociceptive input in the nCF.

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.4463-05.2006

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Several studies show an association between endorsing masculinity and higher pain threshold and tolerance and lower pain ratings.

    “A number of studies have demonstrated an association between endorsing masculinity and a higher pain threshold and tolerance and lower pain ratings 194–198.”
  • Using the Gender Role Expectation of Pain questionnaire, Robinson and colleagues found that women were considered more sensitive to pain, less enduring of pain, and more willing to report pain than men.

    “Using the Gender Role Expectation of Pain (GREP) questionnaire, Robinson and colleagues found that women were considered more sensitive to pain, less enduring of pain, and more willing to report pain compared to men 194, 198, 200.”
  • A recent study in individuals with irritable bowel syndrome showed that the largest placebo effect occurred in met/met homozygotes.

    “A recent study in individuals with irritable bowel syndrome showed that the largest placebo effect occurred in met/met homozygotes.49”

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

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Talairach J, Tournoux P (1988) A coplanar stereotactic atlas of the human brain. Stuttgart: Thieme.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keltner, J. R., Furst, A., Fan, C., Redfern, R., Inglis, B., & Fields, H. L.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2006-04-19
Volume
26
Issue
16
Pages
4437-4443
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2160938249
Cited by
346
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 22
FWCI
8.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • International Anesthesia Research Society
  • U.S. Public Health Service (NS 21445)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS21445)
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, pain transmission, nociceptive processing, thermal pain, visual cues, thalamus, secondary somatosensory cortex, insula, caudal anterior cingulate cortex, caudate nucleus, nucleus cuneiformis, pain perception, expectancy effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Cues, Hot Temperature, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pain, Pain Measurement, Perception, Photic 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