4.6 Article

A Neural Mechanism for Nonconscious Activation of Conditioned Placebo and Nocebo Responses

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 3903-3910

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhu275

关键词

amygdala; conditioning; nocebo effect; placebo effect; subliminal perception

资金

  1. COFAS Marie Curie Postdoc Program and Osher Center for Integrative Medicine at Karolinska Institutet [R01AT006364, R21AT004497, R03AT218317, K24 AT004095, R01AT005280, UL1 RR025758-01, P41RR14075]
  2. Karolinska Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fundamental aspects of human behavior operate outside of conscious awareness. Yet, theories of conditioned responses in humans, such as placebo and nocebo effects on pain, have a strong emphasis on conscious recognition of contextual cues that trigger the response. Here, we investigated the neural pathways involved in nonconscious activation of conditioned pain responses, using functional magnetic resonance imaging in healthy participants. Nonconscious compared with conscious activation of conditioned placebo analgesia was associated with increased activation of the orbitofrontal cortex, a structure with direct connections to affective brain regions and basic reward processing. During nonconscious nocebo, there was increased activation of the thalamus, amygdala, and hippocampus. In contrast to previous assumptions about conditioning in humans, our results show that conditioned pain responses can be elicited independently of conscious awareness and our results suggest a hierarchical activation of neural pathways for nonconscious and conscious conditioned responses. Demonstrating that the human brain has a nonconscious mechanism for responding to conditioned cues has major implications for the role of associative learning in behavioral medicine and psychiatry. Our results may also open up for novel approaches to translational animal-to-human research since human consciousness and animal cognition is an inherent paradox in all behavioral science.

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