Sign in
NeurosciencePain
Peer-reviewed journal article

Radiation of pain: Psychophysical evidence for a population coding mechanism in humans

Wacław M. AdamczykiD, Vishwanath Ramu, Catherine Jackson, Geraldine Schulze, Kenneth R. GoldschneideriD, Susmita Kashikar‐ZuckiD, Christopher D. KingiD, Robert C. CoghilliD

Abstract

The spread of pain across body locations remains poorly understood but may provide important insights into the encoding of sensory features of noxious stimuli by populations of neurons. In this psychophysical experiment, we hypothesized that more intense noxious stimuli would lead to spread of pain, but more intense light stimuli would not produce perceptual radiation. Fifty healthy volunteers (27 females, 23 males, ages 14-44) participated in this study wherein noxious stimuli (43, 45, 47 and 49{degrees}C) were applied to glabrous (hand) and hairy skin (forearm) skin with 5s and 10s durations. Also, visual stimuli displayed on the target bodily area were utilized as a control. Participants provided pain (and light) spatial extent ratings as well as pain (and light) intensity ratings. In the extent rating procedure, participants adjusted the extent of the square displayed on the screen with the extent of pain (or light) which they experienced. Pain extent ratings showed statistically significant radiation of pain indicated by 12.42x greater spatial spread of pain (pain extent) than the area of the stimulation with 49{degrees}C (p<0.001), in contrast to visual ratings which closely approximated the size of the stimulus (1.22x). Pain radiation was more pronounced in hairy than glabrous skin (p<0.05) and was more pronounced with longer stimulus duration (p<0.001). Pain intensity explained only 14% of the pain radiation variability. The relative independence of the pain radiation from pain intensity indicates that distinct components of population coding mechanisms may be involved in the spatial representation of pain versus intensity coding.

PDFDOI

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers
Citations
7
FWCI
2.00
Field percentile
top 13%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.