4.6 Article

Exploring the brain in pain: Activations, deactivations and their relation

期刊

PAIN
卷 148, 期 2, 页码 257-267

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2009.11.008

关键词

fMRI; Resting state; Default network; Cross-modal interaction; Functional connectivity; Gender difference

资金

  1. NIH (NCCAM) [PO1-AT002048, M01-RR-01066]
  2. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [UL1 RR025758-01, P41RR14075]
  3. MIND Research Network [DE-FG03-99ER62764]
  4. [KO1AT003883]
  5. [R21AT004497]
  6. [R21AT00949]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of neuroimaging studies on pain focuses on the study of BOLD activations, and more rarely on deactivations. In this study, in a relatively large cohort of subjects (N = 61), we assess (a) the extent of brain activation and deactivation during the application of two different heat pain levels (HIGH and LOW) and (b) the relations between these two directions of fMRI signal change. Furthermore, in a subset of our subjects (N = 12), we assess (c) the functional connectivity of pain-activated or -deactivated regions during resting states. As previously observed, we find that pain stimuli induce intensity dependent (HIGH pain > LOW pain) fMRI signal increases across the pain matrix. Simultaneously, the noxious stimuli induce activity decreases in several brain regions, including some of the 'core structures' of the default network (DMN). In contrast to what we observe with the signal increases, the extent of deactivations is greater for LOW than HIGH pain stimuli. The functional dissociation between activated and deactivated networks is further supported by correlational and functional connectivity analyses. Our results illustrate the absence of a linear relationship between pain activations and deactivations, and therefore suggest that these brain signal changes underlie different aspects of the pain experience. (C) 2009 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