Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Journal Club

An Objective Measure of Stimulus-Evoked Pain

John L. K. Kramer, Jenny Haefeli and Catherine R. Jutzeler
Journal of Neuroscience 19 September 2012, 32 (38) 12981-12982; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3175-12.2012
John L. K. Kramer
Spinal Cord Injury Center, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, CH 8008 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jenny Haefeli
Spinal Cord Injury Center, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, CH 8008 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine R. Jutzeler
Spinal Cord Injury Center, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, CH 8008 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

For most clinical assessments, reporting perception of a painful event has relied on subjective ratings [e.g., the visual analog scale (VAS)]. A more quantifiable and objective method is desirable, preferably one that is directly related to the physiological processing of nociceptive stimuli. An ideal noninvasive method for this purpose is to use laser stimulation, which activates purely nociceptive Aδ/C-fibers in the periphery, and record laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) generated in the cortex. Brain mapping studies have established a positive relationship between the intensity of pain reported to laser stimuli and LEP amplitude, as well as disclosed a network of cortical areas that are involved in processing laser stimuli.

Whether LEPs directly represent the experience of pain or a more generalized response of heightened attention or arousal to afferent stimuli has been the topic of considerable debate (Truini et al., 2004, 2007; Iannetti et al., 2008; Mouraux and Iannetti, 2008, 2009; Baumgärtner and Treede, 2009; Lee et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2010; Mouraux et al., 2011). Several lines of evidence have recently emerged that suggest LEPs are, at least in part, attributable to multimodal cortical processing of saliency to afferent stimuli. First, non-nociceptive sensory stimuli (e.g., auditory and visual stimuli) evoke cortical potentials that are difficult to distinguish from prominent LEPs (Mouraux and Iannetti, 2009). Second, following non-nociceptive multimodal stimuli, hemodynamic responses have been observed within the same areas activated by nociceptive laser stimulation (Mouraux et al., 2011).

To uncouple the contributions of stimulation saliency and perceived intensity, Iannetti et al. (2008) used a stimulation protocol in which three consecutive laser stimuli of the same energy were delivered at 1 Hz. Triplets were applied at four different intensities to produce varying perception of pain. The authors proposed that the first of the three stimuli remains salient due to a long intertrain interval (20 s), but it increases expectancy and reduces the novelty for subsequent stimuli (Iannetti et al., 2008). The net effect of stimulus repetition is a reduction in LEP amplitude of the averaged second and third stimuli relative to that of the first. The modulation of LEP amplitude by stimulus repetition is observed without corresponding changes in perceived rating of intensity. Importantly, amplitudes generated by the second and third stimuli were reduced for both the earlier contralateral negative component (N1, considered a more direct measure of nociceptive input), and for the vertex potential (N2P2).

Iannetti et al. (2008) suggested that stimulus saliency, not neural refractoriness [“first come, first serve” hypothesis, proposed by Truini et al. (2004, 2007)], accounted for the reduced amplitude of LEPs generated at short interpulse intervals. Indeed, neural refractoriness cannot account for changes in LEP amplitude because subjective perception to laser stimuli does not change over the course of the three delivered pulses (Iannetti et al., 2008). Furthermore, the arrival of a second, unexpected stimulus generates an LEP of equal amplitude, even when delivered at relatively short interpulse intervals (Mouraux et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2010).

Ultimately, the goal of triplet paradigm is to identify key-evoked potential parameters that are less affected by stimulus energy and repetition (i.e., salient features) and more strongly correlated with the subject's perception of pain intensity. According to a recent study (Zhang et al., 2012), this is where gamma band oscillations (GBOs) might play a pivotal role in pain research.

Zhang and colleagues (2012) reexamined data from the original triplet laser stimulation study (Iannetti et al., 2008) with a focus on GBOs. The relationship between GBOs, stimulus repetition, and stimulus intensity is perhaps best illustrated in the left panel of Zhang et al.'s (2012) Figure 3. While a relationship emerges between rating of perceived stimulus intensity, LEPs, and GBOs (i.e., change in magnitude of responses as stimuli are rated as being more painful), only GBOs are unaffected by stimulus repetition. That is, GBOs do not appreciably change from one stimulus to the next, and thus, correspond with the rating of perceived intensity to a given stimuli. In the subsequent figures by Zhang et al. (2012), this point is illustrated and substantiated by statistical analysis revealing that the intensity of pain (i.e., subjective pain experience), but not stimulus repetition or stimulus energy, resulted in significant changes in GBO magnitude.

While Zhang and colleagues (2012) were not the first to identify the relationship between GBOs and pain intensity, the reanalysis of the triplet laser stimulation data controls for the potential confound of stimulus saliency. Given the marked effect of saliency on LEPs, it was important to test whether GBOs behave similarly. In contrast to LEP amplitude, laser-induced GBOs appear to represent a more direct measure of pain perception. Whether the emerging characteristics of noxious GBOs differ from innocuous GBOs (e.g., those produced by nonaversive visual or acoustic stimuli) remains an important question to address in future studies.

One potential challenge of acquiring laser-evoked GBOs will be to isolate oscillations strictly related to the nociceptive stimulus from artifacts generated by microsaccades. To account for eye movements, Zhang and colleagues (2012) used independent component analysis to remove ocular artifacts. However, to further minimize the contribution of ocular artifacts, future experiments that aim to study pain-evoked GBOs should consider recently developed guidelines (Schwartzman and Kranczioch, 2011). These guidelines include the use of longer duration stimuli and measuring GBOs at ocular recording electrodes.

If GBOs induced by laser stimulation can be independently and prospectively validated as a strong correlate of perceived pain intensity, the clinical implications are far reaching. In particular, laser-induced GBOs could be useful to more accurately diagnose patients with complex sensory deficits, such as neuropathic pain. Indeed, this is an area where current LEP parameters have met with limited success (Hatem et al., 2010). In the context of clinical trials, GBOs may be useful to objectively monitor and track pain relief due to a therapeutic intervention (i.e., measuring changes in GBOs preintervention and postintervention, along with patient-reported VAS score). Monitoring continuous GBOs may also improve the objective assessment of pain. Such a technique could be equally or potentially more meaningful than event-related GBOs to diagnose spontaneous or idiopathic pain.

Footnotes

  • Editor's Note: These short, critical reviews of recent papers in the Journal, written exclusively by graduate students or postdoctoral fellows, are intended to summarize the important findings of the paper and provide additional insight and commentary. For more information on the format and purpose of the Journal Club, please see http://www.jneurosci.org/misc/ifa_features.shtml.

  • John Kramer is supported by the International Foundation for Research in Paraplegia—Zurich. We are thankful to Drs. Armin Curt (Spinal Cord Injury Center, University Hospital Balgrist) and John Steeves (ICORD, University of British Columbia) for reviewing this manuscript.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. John L. K. Kramer, Postdoctoral Fellow, Spinal Cord Injury Center, University of Zurich, University Hospital Balgrist, Forchstrasse 340, CH 8008 Zurich, Switzerland. jkramer{at}paralab.balgrist.ch

References

  1. ↵
    1. Baumgärtner U,
    2. Treede RD
    (2009) Are there nociceptive-specific brain potentials? J Neurophysiol 102:3073–3074, author reply 3075-3076, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Hatem SM,
    2. Attal N,
    3. Ducreux D,
    4. Gautron M,
    5. Parker F,
    6. Plaghki L,
    7. Bouhassira D
    (2010) Clinical, functional and structural determinants of central pain in syringomyelia. Brain 133:3409–3422, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Iannetti GD,
    2. Hughes NP,
    3. Lee MC,
    4. Mouraux A
    (2008) Determinants of laser-evoked EEG responses: pain perception or stimulus saliency? J Neurophysiol 100:815–828, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Lee MC,
    2. Mouraux A,
    3. Iannetti GD
    (2009) Characterizing the cortical activity through which pain emerges from nociception. J Neurosci 29:7909–7916, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Mouraux A,
    2. Iannetti GD
    (2008) A review of the evidence against the “first come first served” hypothesis. Comment on Truini et al. [Pain 2007;131:43-47] Pain 136:219–221, author reply 222-223, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Mouraux A,
    2. Iannetti GD
    (2009) Nociceptive laser-evoked brain potentials do not reflect nociceptive-specific neural activity. J Neurophysiol 101:3258–3269, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Mouraux A,
    2. Guérit JM,
    3. Plaghki L
    (2004) Refractoriness cannot explain why C-fiber laser-evoked brain potentials are recorded only if concomitant a[delta]-fiber activation is avoided. Pain 112:16–26, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Mouraux A,
    2. Diukova A,
    3. Lee MC,
    4. Wise RG,
    5. Iannetti GD
    (2011) A multisensory investigation of the functional significance of the “pain matrix” Neuroimage 54:2237–2249, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Schwartzman DJ,
    2. Kranczioch C
    (2011) In the blink of an eye: the contribution of microsaccadic activity to the induced gamma band response. Int J Psychophysiol 79:73–82, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Truini A,
    2. Rossi P,
    3. Galeotti F,
    4. Romaniello A,
    5. Virtuoso M,
    6. De Lena C,
    7. Leandri M,
    8. Cruccu G
    (2004) Excitability of the a[delta] nociceptive pathways as assessed by the recovery cycle of laser evoked potentials in humans. Exp Brain Res 155:120–123, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Truini A,
    2. Galeotti F,
    3. Cruccu G,
    4. Garcia-Larrea L
    (2007) Inhibition of cortical responses to a[delta] inputs by a preceding C-related response: testing the “first come, first served” hypothesis of cortical laser evoked potentials. Pain 131:341–347, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Wang AL,
    2. Mouraux A,
    3. Liang M,
    4. Iannetti GD
    (2010) Stimulus novelty, and not neural refractoriness, explains the repetition suppression of laser-evoked potentials. J Neurophysiol 104:2116–2124, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Zhang ZG,
    2. Hu L,
    3. Hung YS,
    4. Mouraux A,
    5. Iannetti GD
    (2012) Gamma-band oscillations in the primary somatosensory cortex: a direct and obligatory correlate of subjective pain intensity. J Neurosci 32:7429–7438, CrossRef Medline.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 32 (38)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 32, Issue 38
19 Sep 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
An Objective Measure of Stimulus-Evoked Pain
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
An Objective Measure of Stimulus-Evoked Pain
John L. K. Kramer, Jenny Haefeli, Catherine R. Jutzeler
Journal of Neuroscience 19 September 2012, 32 (38) 12981-12982; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3175-12.2012

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
An Objective Measure of Stimulus-Evoked Pain
John L. K. Kramer, Jenny Haefeli, Catherine R. Jutzeler
Journal of Neuroscience 19 September 2012, 32 (38) 12981-12982; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3175-12.2012
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Mixed Excitatory and Inhibitory Projections from the Basolateral Amygdala to the Mediodorsal Thalamic Nucleus
  • Selective and Systems-Level Face Processing Impairments in ASD
  • Transplanted Astrocytes Show Functional Flexibility in the Recipient Brain
Show more Journal Club
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.