Literature DB >> 12614906

Electrophysiological correlates of attentional orientation in humans to strong intensity deviant nociceptive stimuli, inside and outside the focus of spatial attention.

Valéry Legrain1, Jean-Michel Guérit, Raymond Bruyer, Léon Plaghki.   

Abstract

Laser evoked potentials (LEPs) are electrical brain responses to nociceptive heat stimuli. In a recent study [Legrain, V., Guérit, J.M., Bruyer, R. and Plaghki, L., Pain, 99 (2002) 21-39.], we found that amplitude at approximately 400 ms was increased by rare intensity deviant nociceptive stimuli (P400 effect). In that study, laser stimuli were randomly delivered on both hands, and subjects were focusing attention on one hand in order to detect rare stimuli. As the P400 effect was found for rare stimuli when spatial attention was directed both towards and away from the stimulated hand, it was postulated to represent a P3a component reflecting an involuntary orientation of attention to unexpected deviant stimuli. However LEPs to strong and weak intensity stimuli were averaged together and some effects could have been underestimated. So, we present a new interpretation of the P400 effect based on separate analyses of strong and weak intensity deviant stimuli. Indeed, the P400 effect was only observed for strong stimuli, and again on both attended and unattended hands. Thus, if the P400 effect reflects P3a, only strong deviant stimuli provided enough signals to induce attentional switching even when they were delivered outside the focus of spatial attention. It is suggested that attentional switching could have been triggered by neural systems having detected sharp increase of intensity. Weak deviant stimuli were not salient enough to induce attentional switching.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12614906     DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3940(02)01485-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosci Lett        ISSN: 0304-3940            Impact factor:   3.046


  8 in total

1.  Understanding the mechanisms through which spatial attention acts on nociception.

Authors:  Diana M E Torta
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 2.  From the neuromatrix to the pain matrix (and back).

Authors:  G D Iannetti; A Mouraux
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-07-06       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Emotional conflict in a model modulates nociceptive processing in an onlooker: a laser-evoked potentials study.

Authors:  Matteo Martini; Elia Valentini; Salvatore Maria Aglioti
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Dishabituation of laser-evoked EEG responses: dissecting the effect of certain and uncertain changes in stimulus spatial location.

Authors:  D M Torta; M Liang; E Valentini; A Mouraux; G D Iannetti
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-02-17       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Controlling attention to nociceptive stimuli with working memory.

Authors:  Valéry Legrain; Geert Crombez; André Mouraux
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-06-07       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Top-down and bottom-up modulation of pain-induced oscillations.

Authors:  Michael Hauck; Claudia Domnick; Jürgen Lorenz; Christian Gerloff; Andreas K Engel
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  Influence of transient spatial attention on the P3 component and perception of painful and non-painful electric stimuli in crossed and uncrossed hands positions.

Authors:  Karolina Świder; Eligiusz Wronka; Joukje M Oosterman; Clementina M van Rijn; Marijtje L A Jongsma
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Duration of the cue-to-pain delay increases pain intensity: a combined EEG and MEG study.

Authors:  Michael Hauck; Jürgen Lorenz; Roger Zimmermann; Stefan Debener; Eckehard Scharein; Andreas K Engel
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-02-08       Impact factor: 2.064

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.