4.4 Review

Nociceptive Laser-Evoked Brain Potentials Do Not Reflect Nociceptive-Specific Neural Activity

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 101, 期 6, 页码 3258-3269

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.91181.2008

关键词

-

资金

  1. Charge de recherches of the Belgian National Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mouraux A, Iannetti GD. Nociceptive laser-evoked brain potentials do not reflect nociceptive-specific neural activity. J Neurophysiol 101: 3258-3269, 2009. First published April 1, 2009; doi:10.1152/jn.91181.2008. Brief radiant laser pulses can be used to activate cutaneous A delta and C nociceptors selectively and elicit a number of transient brain responses [laser-evoked potentials (LEPs)] in the ongoing EEG. LEPs have been used extensively in the past 30 years to gain knowledge about the cortical mechanisms underlying nociception and pain in humans, by assuming that they reflect at least neural activities uniquely or preferentially involved in processing nociceptive input. Here, by applying a novel blind source separation algorithm (probabilistic independent component analysis) to 124-channel event-related potentials elicited by a random sequence of nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory, auditory, and visual stimuli, we provide compelling evidence that this assumption is incorrect: LEPs do not reflect nociceptive-specific neural activity. Indeed, our results indicate that LEPs can be entirely explained by a combination of multimodal neural activities (i.e., activities also elicited by stimuli of other sensory modalities) and somatosensory-specific, but not nociceptive-specific, neural activities (i.e., activities elicited by both nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli). Regardless of the sensory modality of the eliciting stimulus, the magnitude of multimodal activities correlated with the subjective rating of saliency, suggesting that these multimodal activities are involved in stimulus-triggered mechanisms of arousal or attentional reorientation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据