4.7 Article

A comparison of visceral and somatic pain processing in the human brainstem using functional magnetic resonance imaging

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 25, 期 32, 页码 7333-7341

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1100-05.2005

关键词

visceral; somatic; fMRI; rectum; pain; brainstem

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR41622] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evidence from both human and animal studies has demonstrated a key role for brainstem centers in the control of ascending nociceptive input. Nuclei such as the rostral ventromedial medulla and periaqueductal gray (PAG) are able to both inhibit and facilitate the nociceptive response. It has been proposed that altered descending modulation may underlie many of the chronic pain syndromes (both somatic and visceral). We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to image the neural correlates of visceral and somatic pain within the brainstem. Ten healthy subjects were scanned twice at 3 tesla, during which they received matched, moderately painful, electrical stimuli to either the midline lower abdomen or rectum. Significant activation was observed in regions consistent with the PAG, nucleus cuneiformis (NCF), ventral tegmental area/substantia nigra, parabrachial nuclei/nucleus ceruleus, and red nucleus bilaterally to both stimuli. Marked spatial similarities in activation were observed for visceral and somatic pain, although significantly greater activation of the NCF (left NCF, p = 0.02; right NCF, p = 0.01; Student's paired t test, two-tailed) was observed in the visceral pain group compared with the somatic group. Right PAG activity correlated with anxiety during visceral stimulation (r = 0.74; p < 0.05, Pearson's r, two-tailed) but not somatic stimulation. We propose that the differences in NCF and right PAG activation observed may represent a greater nocifensive response and greater emotive salience of visceral over somatic pain.

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