BACKGROUND:Electroacupuncture (EA) is currently one of the most popular acupuncture modalities. However, the continuous stimulation characteristic of EA treatment presents challenges to the use of conventional functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) approaches for the investigation of neural mechanisms mediating treatment response because of the requirement for brief and intermittent stimuli in event related or block designed task paradigms. A relatively new analysis method, functional connectivity fMRI (fcMRI), has great potential for studying continuous treatment modalities such as EA. In a previous study, we found that, compared with sham acupuncture, EA can significantly reduce Periaqueductal Gray (PAG) activity when subsequently evoked by experimental pain. Given the PAG's important role in mediating acupuncture analgesia, in this study we investigated functional connectivity with the area of the PAG we previously identified and how that connectivity was affected by genuine and sham EA. RESULTS:Forty-eight subjects, who were randomly assigned to receive either genuine or sham EA paired with either a high or low expectancy manipulation, completed the study. Direct comparison of each treatment mode's functional connectivity revealed: significantly greater connectivity between the PAG, left posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), and precuneus for the contrast of genuine minus sham; significantly greater connectivity between the PAG and right anterior insula for the contrast of sham minus genuine; no significant differences in connectivity between different contrasts of the two expectancy levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate the intrinsic functional connectivity changes among key brain regions in the pain matrix and default mode network during genuine EA compared with sham EA. We speculate that continuous genuine EA stimulation can modify the coupling of spontaneous activity in brain regions that play a role in modulating pain perception.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Electroacupuncture (EA) is currently one of the most popular acupuncture modalities. However, the continuous stimulation characteristic of EA treatment presents challenges to the use of conventional functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) approaches for the investigation of neural mechanisms mediating treatment response because of the requirement for brief and intermittent stimuli in event related or block designed task paradigms. A relatively new analysis method, functional connectivity fMRI (fcMRI), has great potential for studying continuous treatment modalities such as EA. In a previous study, we found that, compared with sham acupuncture, EA can significantly reduce Periaqueductal Gray (PAG) activity when subsequently evoked by experimental pain. Given the PAG's important role in mediating acupuncture analgesia, in this study we investigated functional connectivity with the area of the PAG we previously identified and how that connectivity was affected by genuine and sham EA. RESULTS: Forty-eight subjects, who were randomly assigned to receive either genuine or sham EA paired with either a high or low expectancy manipulation, completed the study. Direct comparison of each treatment mode's functional connectivity revealed: significantly greater connectivity between the PAG, left posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), and precuneus for the contrast of genuine minus sham; significantly greater connectivity between the PAG and right anterior insula for the contrast of sham minus genuine; no significant differences in connectivity between different contrasts of the two expectancy levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate the intrinsic functional connectivity changes among key brain regions in the pain matrix and default mode network during genuine EA compared with sham EA. We speculate that continuous genuine EA stimulation can modify the coupling of spontaneous activity in brain regions that play a role in modulating pain perception.
Authors: K K Hui; J Liu; N Makris; R L Gollub; A J Chen; C I Moore; D N Kennedy; B R Rosen; K K Kwong Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2000 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: M E Raichle; A M MacLeod; A Z Snyder; W J Powers; D A Gusnard; G L Shulman Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-01-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Irene Tracey; Alexander Ploghaus; Joseph S Gati; Stuart Clare; Steve Smith; Ravi S Menon; Paul M Matthews Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2002-04-01 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Randy L Gollub; Irving Kirsch; Nasim Maleki; Ajay D Wasan; Robert R Edwards; Yiheng Tu; Ted J Kaptchuk; Jian Kong Journal: J Pain Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Charles W Gay; Michael E Robinson; Steven Z George; William M Perlstein; Mark D Bishop Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Karin B Jensen; Rita Loitoile; Eva Kosek; Frank Petzke; Serena Carville; Peter Fransson; Hanke Marcus; Steven C R Williams; Ernest Choy; Yves Mainguy; Olivier Vitton; Richard H Gracely; Randy Gollub; Martin Ingvar; Jian Kong Journal: Mol Pain Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 3.395
Authors: Ma Peihong; Qu Yuzhu; Yin Tao; He Zhaoxuan; Cheng Shirui; Teng Yuke; Xie Kunnan; Li Shenghong; Sun Ruirui; Zeng Fang Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 4.677