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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain
Price, D. D., McGrath, P. A., Rafii, A., & Buckingham, B. (1983) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(83)90126-4 · Cited by 3,921
Analgesia produced by injection of lidocaine into the anterior cingulum bundle of the rat
Vaccarino, A. L., & Melzack, R. (1989) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(89)90008-0 · Cited by 104
Cited by
Pain Affect Encoded in Human Anterior Cingulate But Not Somatosensory Cortex
Rainville, P., Duncan, G. H., Price, D. D., Carrier, B., & Bushnell, M. C. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.968 · Cited by 2,687
Self-citationPsychological and neural mechanisms of the affective dimension of pain
Price, D. D. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.288.5472.1769 · Cited by 2,092
Price, D. D., Bush, F. M., Long, S., & Harkins, S. W. (1994) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(94)90097-3 · Cited by 1,174
The cortical representation of pain
Treede, R.-D., Kenshalo, D. R., Gracely, R. H., & Jones, A. K. P. (1999) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00184-5 · Cited by 1,077
Racine, M., Tousignant-Laflamme, Y., Kloda, L. A., Dion, D., Dupuis, G., & Choinière, M. (2012) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.11.025 · Cited by 691
Metadata
- Authors
- Rainville, P., Feine, J. S., Bushnell, M. C., & Duncan, G. H.
- Venue
- Somatosensory & Motor Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.