4.6 Article

Baroreceptor activation attenuates attentional effects on pain-evoked potentials

期刊

PAIN
卷 151, 期 3, 页码 853-861

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.09.028

关键词

Baroreceptor; Blood pressure; Cardiac timing; Pain; Evoked potentials; Attention; Homeostasis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Focused attention typically enhances neural nociceptive responses, reflected electroencephalographically as increased amplitude of pain-evoked event-related potentials (ERPs). Additionally, pain-evoked ERPs are attenuated by hypertension and baroreceptor activity, through as yet unclear mechanisms. There is indirect evidence that these two effects may interact, suggesting that baroreceptor-related modulation of nociception is more than a low-level gating phenomenon. To address this hypothesis, we explored in a group of healthy participants the combined effects of cue-induced expectancy and baroreceptor activity on the amplitude of pain-evoked ERPs. Brief nociceptive skin stimuli were delivered during a simple visual task; half were preceded by a visual forewarning cue, and half were unpredictable. Nociceptive stimuli were timed to coincide either with systole (maximum activation of cardiac baroreceptors) or with diastole (minimum baroreceptor activation). We observed a strong interaction between expectancy and cardiac timing for the amplitude of the P2 ERP component; no effects were observed for the N2 component. Cued stimuli were associated with larger P2 amplitude, but this effect was abolished for stimuli presented during baroreceptor activation. No cardiac timing effect was observed for un-cued stimuli. Taken together, these findings suggest a close integration of cognitive-affective aspects of expectancy and baroreceptor influences on pain, and as such may cast further light on mechanisms underlying mental and physiological contributions to clinical pain. (C) 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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