4.6 Article

Classical conditioning and expectancy in placebo hypoalgesia: A randomized controlled study in patients with atopic dermatitis and persons with healthy skin

期刊

PAIN
卷 128, 期 1-2, 页码 31-39

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.08.025

关键词

placebo analgesia; placebo hypoalgesia; randomized controlled clinical trial; placebo effect; pain; classical conditioning; expectancy theory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effectiveness of placebos is unchallenged. However, it is still not clear on which mechanisms the placebo effect is based. Besides expectancy theories, classical conditioning is discussed as a major explanatory model. In an experimental conditioning design we tested 96 participants, 48 with atopic dermatitis (24 male, 24 female) and 48 with healthy skin (24 male and 24 female). All of them received a neutral ointment with a different briefing (pain-reducing ointment versus neutral ointment). Electrical pain stimuli were subsequently applied, which selectively induce a painful sensation. In the case of the learning condition (classical conditioning) and unbeknown to the participants, the intensity of the pain stimulus was reduced by 50% after the ointment had been applied. The study addressed the question whether the pain experienced by the patients with atopic dermatitis could be reduced through a placebo effect and whether the placebo effect was achieved through expectancy or through a process of classical conditioning or both. The results indicate that a placebo effect is achieved via expectancy and classical conditioning. However, conditioning processes seem to be necessary for a longer lasting effect. The extent of this effect seemed to be greater in atopics than in healthy controls. Expectancy, achieved through verbal instruction, might also be seen as a conditioned stimulus that reactivates earlier stimulus associations. (c) 2006 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