Literature DB >> 29758356

The Influence of Placebo Analgesia Manipulations on Pain Report, the Nociceptive Flexion Reflex, and Autonomic Responses to Pain.

Jamie L Rhudy1, Yvette M Güereca2, Bethany L Kuhn2, Shreela Palit2, Magne Arve Flaten3.   

Abstract

Expectations for pain relief and experience/conditioning are psychological factors that contribute to placebo analgesia, yet few studies have studied the physiological mechanisms underlying their effects. This study randomized 133 participants to 4 groups: an expectation only (E-only) group, a conditioning only (C-only) group, an expectation plus conditioning (E+C) group, and a natural history (NH) control group. Painful electric stimulations were delivered before and after an inert cream was applied to the site of stimulation. Pain-related outcomes (pain ratings, nociceptive flexion reflex [NFR], skin conductance response, and heart rate acceleration) were recorded after each stimulation. NFR (a measure of spinal nociception) assessed if placebo analgesia inhibited spinal processing of pain. E+C was the only manipulation that significantly inhibited pain and skin conductance response. Surprisingly, NFR was facilitated in the E+C and E-only groups. No effects were noted for C-only. Mediation analysis suggested 2 descending processes were engaged during E+C that influenced spinal nociception: 1) descending facilitation and 2) descending inhibition that was also responsible for pain reduction. These results suggest that E+C manipulations produce the strongest analgesia and have a complex influence on spinal nociception involving both inhibitory and facilitatory processes. PERSPECTIVE: This study assessed whether placebo analgesia manipulations that include expectations, conditioning, or both modulate the NFR (measure of spinal nociception). Only the manipulation that involved expectations and conditioning inhibited pain, but both expectation manipulations facilitated NFR. This suggests a complex modulation of spinal neurons by placebo manipulations.
Copyright © 2018 The American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  RIII reflex; conditioning; expectations; heart rate; placebo analgesia; skin conductance

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29758356     DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.04.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pain        ISSN: 1526-5900            Impact factor:   5.820


  6 in total

Review 1.  Descending control of nociception in insects?

Authors:  Matilda Gibbons; Sajedeh Sarlak; Lars Chittka
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 5.530

2.  A virtual experimenter does not increase placebo hypoalgesia when delivering an interactive expectancy manipulation.

Authors:  Bjoern Horing; Sarah C Beadle; Zachariah Inks; Andrew Robb; Eric R Muth; Sabarish V Babu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Association of nocebo hyperalgesia and basic somatosensory characteristics in a large cohort.

Authors:  Mari Hanna Feldhaus; Björn Horing; Christian Sprenger; Christian Büchel
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Placebo Effects on Stress, but Not on Pain Reports. A Multi-Experiment Study.

Authors:  Sara Magelssen Vambheim; Hojjat Daniali; Magne Arve Flaten
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-06-07

5.  Order does matter: the combined effects of classical conditioning and verbal suggestions on placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia.

Authors:  Elżbieta A Bajcar; Karolina Wiercioch-Kuzianik; Dominika Farley; Ewa Buglewicz; Borysław Paulewicz; Przemysław Bąbel
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 6.961

6.  Failure to Find a Conditioned Placebo Analgesic Response.

Authors:  Magne A Flaten; Espen Bjørkedal; Peter S Lyby; Yngve Figenschau; Per M Aslaksen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-07-30
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.