4.7 Article

The unpleasantness of tonic pain is encoded by the insular cortex

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 64, 期 7, 页码 1175-1183

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.WNL.0000156353.17305.52

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Muscle pain differs from skin pain with respect to quality, accuracy of localization, and unpleasantness. This study was conducted to identify the brain regions associated with the affective-motivational component of tonic skin and muscle pain. Methods: Forty healthy volunteers were investigated in three groups with different F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET activation scans. A verbal rating scale (VRS) was used to quantify pain intensity and unpleasantness. One group was investigated during painful infusion of an acidified phosphate buffer (pH 5.2) into either muscle or skin for 30 minutes. Muscle and skin infusions were adjusted to achieve pain intensity rating of VRS = 40. The second group received sham stimulation of muscle and skin by infusion of non-acidified phosphate buffer (pH 7.3 to 7.4, pain intensity = 0). The third group underwent only one PET scan without sensory stimulation. Results: Unpleasantness ratings were higher (VRS 38.3 vs 25.5) during IM compared to intracutaneous stimulation, despite the same pain intensity (VRS = 40). Sham stimulation revealed no pain or unpleasantness. Regional cerebral glucose metabolism during sham stimulation showed similar findings for intracutaneous and IM infusions with significant activations of the bilateral anterior cingulate, bilateral frontal (premotor) cortex, and the ipsilateral parietal operculum. The comparison of pain vs sham stimulation revealed activations of the bilateral insula for IM but not intracutaneous stimulation. The unpleasantness perception in skin and muscle stimulation was positively correlated to the bilateral insular metabolism. Conclusion: The data suggest that the insula represents one main structure where the unpleasantness of tonic pain perception is encoded.

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