Sensory Evidence and Expectations in Pain Processing

NCT ID: NCT04296968

Last Updated: 2021-04-01

Basic Information

• Recruitment Status: COMPLETED
• Clinical Phase: NA
• Total Enrollment: 50 participants
• Study Classification: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Start Date: 2020-03-01
• Study Completion Date: 2020-12-01

Brief Summary

Pain is a highly complex and subjective phenomenon which is not only rooted in sensory information but also shaped by cognitive processes such as expectation. However, the interaction of brain activity cording sensory information and expectation in pain processing are not completely understood. Predictive coding models postulate specific hypothesis about the interplay between bottom-up sensory information and top-down expectations in terms of prediction errors and predictions, respectively. They further implicate brain oscillations at different frequencies, which play a crucial role in processing prediction errors and predictions. More specifically, recent evidence in visual and auditory modalities suggests that predictions are reflected by alpha (8-13 Hz) and beta oscillations (14-30 Hz) and prediction errors by gamma oscillations (60-100 Hz). However, for the processing of pain, these frequency-specific relationships have not been addressed so far. The current project aims to investigate brain activity which reflects predictions, prediction errors and sensory evidence in pain processing using a cueing paradigm. To this end, we will apply painful stimuli with low and high intensity to the dorsum of the left hand in 50 healthy subjects. A visual cue, preceding to each painful stimulus, will predict the intensity of the consecutive painful stimulus (low vs. high) with a probability of 75%. After each painful stimulus, participants will be asked to rate the perceived pain intensity. Electroencephalography (EEG) and skin conductance will be recorded continuously during anticipation and stimulation intervals. This paradigm enables us to compare pain-associated brain responses of validly and invalidly cued trials, i.e. the representation of the prediction error, on the one hand. On the other hand, brain activity related to predictions can be investigated in the anticipation interval preceding to the painful stimulus by comparing trials with low and high intensity cues. Further, we will compare models including predictions, prediction error and sensory evidence to ascertain the involvement of each brain response in processing sensory information and expectation. Results of the study promise to elucidate the interplay of predictions, predictions errors and sensory evidence in pain processing and how they differentially relate to neural oscillations at different frequency bands and pain-evoked responses.

Detailed Description

Not needed

Conditions

Experimental Pain in Healthy Human Participants

Study Design

• Allocation Method: NA
• Intervention Model: SINGLE_GROUP
• Primary Study Purpose: BASIC_SCIENCE
• Blinding Strategy: NONE

Study Groups

Expectation and experimental pain in humans

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

Painful stimulation using a laser device (DEKA Stimul 1340, Calenzano, Italy)

Intervention Type: DEVICE

In the experimental paradigm, 160 painful stimuli of two intensities (3 J, 3.5 J) will be applied to the dorsum of the left hand using the laser device listed above.

Visual cueing

Intervention Type: DEVICE

Preceding to each painful stimulus, visual cues (e.g., blue dot and yellow square) will be presented on a screen indicating the intensity of the subsequent stimulus (low and high intensity) with an accuracy of 75%. The contingencies of the visual cues will be explicitly stated to the participants.

Interventions

Painful stimulation using a laser device (DEKA Stimul 1340, Calenzano, Italy)

In the experimental paradigm, 160 painful stimuli of two intensities (3 J, 3.5 J) will be applied to the dorsum of the left hand using the laser device listed above.

Intervention Type: DEVICE

Visual cueing

Preceding to each painful stimulus, visual cues (e.g., blue dot and yellow square) will be presented on a screen indicating the intensity of the subsequent stimulus (low and high intensity) with an accuracy of 75%. The contingencies of the visual cues will be explicitly stated to the participants.

Intervention Type: DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

• Age 18-65 years
• Right-handedness
• Written informed consent

Exclusion Criteria

• Pregnancy
• Neurological or psychiatric diseases (e.g. epilepsy, stroke, depression, anxiety disorders)
• Severe general illnesses (e.g. tumors, diabetes)
• Skin diseases (e.g. dermatitis, psoriasis or eczema)
• Current or recurrent pain
• Regular intake of medication
• Surgical procedures involving the head or spinal cord
• Metal (except titanium) or electronic implants
• Side-effects following previous thermal stimulation

• Minimum Eligible Age: 18 Years
• Maximum Eligible Age: 65 Years
• Eligible Sex: ALL
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Sponsors

German Research Foundation

OTHER

Sponsor Role: collaborator

Technical University of Munich

OTHER

Sponsor Role: lead

Responsible Party

Markus Ploner

Professor of Human Pain Research

Responsibility Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Markus Ploner, Prof Dr med

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Department of Neurology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TUM

Locations

Department of Neurology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München

Munich, Bavaria, Germany

Countries

Germany

References

Bastos AM, Usrey WM, Adams RA, Mangun GR, Fries P, Friston KJ. Canonical microcircuits for predictive coding. Neuron. 2012 Nov 21;76(4):695-711. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.038.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 23177956 (View on PubMed)

Bastos AM, Vezoli J, Bosman CA, Schoffelen JM, Oostenveld R, Dowdall JR, De Weerd P, Kennedy H, Fries P. Visual areas exert feedforward and feedback influences through distinct frequency channels. Neuron. 2015 Jan 21;85(2):390-401. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.018. Epub 2014 Dec 31.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 25556836 (View on PubMed)

Buchel C, Geuter S, Sprenger C, Eippert F. Placebo analgesia: a predictive coding perspective. Neuron. 2014 Mar 19;81(6):1223-1239. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.02.042.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 24656247 (View on PubMed)

de Lange FP, Heilbron M, Kok P. How Do Expectations Shape Perception? Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Sep;22(9):764-779. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.06.002. Epub 2018 Jun 29.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 30122170 (View on PubMed)

Egner T, Monti JM, Summerfield C. Expectation and surprise determine neural population responses in the ventral visual stream. J Neurosci. 2010 Dec 8;30(49):16601-8. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2770-10.2010.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 21147999 (View on PubMed)

Fazeli S, Buchel C. Pain-Related Expectation and Prediction Error Signals in the Anterior Insula Are Not Related to Aversiveness. J Neurosci. 2018 Jul 18;38(29):6461-6474. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0671-18.2018. Epub 2018 Jun 22.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 29934355 (View on PubMed)

Geuter S, Boll S, Eippert F, Buchel C. Functional dissociation of stimulus intensity encoding and predictive coding of pain in the insula. Elife. 2017 May 19;6:e24770. doi: 10.7554/eLife.24770.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 28524817 (View on PubMed)

Todorovic A, de Lange FP. Repetition suppression and expectation suppression are dissociable in time in early auditory evoked fields. J Neurosci. 2012 Sep 26;32(39):13389-95. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2227-12.2012.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 23015429 (View on PubMed)

Todorovic A, van Ede F, Maris E, de Lange FP. Prior expectation mediates neural adaptation to repeated sounds in the auditory cortex: an MEG study. J Neurosci. 2011 Jun 22;31(25):9118-23. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1425-11.2011.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 21697363 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

03/2020

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id