4.7 Article

Distinct neural networks subserve placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 231, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117833

关键词

Placebo analgesia; Nocebo hyperalgesia; Activation likelihood estimation; Meta-analysis; Meta-analytic connectivity modeling; Resting-state functional connectivity; Functional decoding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A meta-analysis comparing neural representations of placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia processes revealed distinct brain networks underlying these two phenomena, suggesting they may operate via different neuropsychological processes.
Neural networks involved in placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia processes have been widely investigated with neuroimaging methods. However, few studies have directly compared these two processes and it remains unclear whether common or distinct neural circuits are involved. To address this issue, we implemented a coordinate-based meta-analysis and compared neural representations of placebo analgesia (30 studies; 205 foci; 677 subjects) and nocebo hyperalgesia (22 studies; 301 foci; 401 subjects). Contrast analyses confirmed placebo-specific concordance in the right ventral striatum, and nocebo-specific concordance in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), left posterior insula and left parietal operculum during combined pain anticipation and administration stages. Importantly, no overlapping regions were found for these two processes in conjunction analyses, even when the threshold was low. Meta-analytic connectivity modeling (MACM) and resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) analyses on key regions further confirmed the distinct brain networks underlying placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia. Together, these findings indicate that the placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia processes involve distinct neural circuits, which supports the view that the two phenomena may operate via different neuropsychological processes.

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

4.7
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