Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 382

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Psychophysical Comparison of Sensory and Affective Responses to Four Modalities of Experimental Pain

Rainville, Pierre, Feine, Jocelyne S., Bushnell, M. Catherine, Duncan, Gary H.·1992·Somatosensory & Motor Research

Abstract

It is generally accepted that the sensory and affective components of pain may be differentially associated with various acute and chronic diseases, and that some treatment regimens are best directed toward certain aspects of the pain experience. In addition, experimental animal models have been described that presume to assess either the sensory-discriminative aspects of phasic pain or the affective responses associated with tonic pain. The present psychophysical experiment directly compares the perceived intensity and unpleasantness of sensations evoked by four types of experimental noxious stimuli: contact heat, electric shock, ischemic exercise, and cold-pressor pain. A novel pain measurement technique is described that incorporates unbounded magnitude-estimation/category scales; this technique allows precise ratio responses, while minimizing within- and between-subject variability. We observe that, relative to the perceived intensity of the individual stimuli, subjects consistently differentiate among the degrees of unpleasantness evoked by the four stimulus modalities. Ischemic exercise and cold-pressor pain evoke higher estimates of unpleasantness, and thus may better mimic the pain of chronic disease. The relative unpleasantness produced by contact heat is significantly less than that of the other modalities tested, and therefore contact heat stimuli may be ideally suited for assessing sensory-discriminative aspects of pain perception. Possible neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the observed differences in perceived unpleasantness are discussed in relation to the growing body of literature concerning tonic and phasic pain stimuli.

Overview

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 · 10.3109/08990229209144776

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 382

Metadata

Authors
Rainville, P., Feine, J. S., Bushnell, M. C., & Duncan, G. H.
Venue
Somatosensory & Motor Research
Published
1992-01
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
265-277
ISSN
  • 0899-0220 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-1651
OpenAlex
W2083974163
Cited by
382
References
2
FWCI
3.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Psychophysical Comparison of Sensory and Affective Responses to Four Modalities of Experimental Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/08990229209144776
The paper
Rainville, P., Feine, J. S., Bushnell, M. C., & Duncan, G. H. (1992). A Psychophysical Comparison of Sensory and Affective Responses to Four Modalities of Experimental Pain. Somatosensory & Motor Research. https://doi.org/10.3109/08990229209144776

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.