Dataset Information

Common brain activations for painful and non-painful aversive stimuli.

ABSTRACT: Identification of potentially harmful stimuli is necessary for the well-being and self-preservation of all organisms. However, the neural substrates involved in the processing of aversive stimuli are not well understood. For instance, painful and non-painful aversive stimuli are largely thought to activate different neural networks. However, it is presently unclear whether there is a common aversion-related network of brain regions responsible for the basic processing of aversive stimuli. To help clarify this issue, this report used a cross-species translational approach in humans (i.e. meta-analysis) and rodents (i.e. systematic review of functional neuroanatomy).Animal and human data combined to show a core aversion-related network, consisting of similar cortical (i.e. MCC, PCC, AI, DMPFC, RTG, SMA, VLOFC; see results section or abbreviation section for full names) and subcortical (i.e. Amyg, BNST, DS, Hab, Hipp/Parahipp, Hyp, NAc, NTS, PAG, PBN, raphe, septal nuclei, Thal, LC, midbrain) regions. In addition, a number of regions appeared to be more involved in pain-related (e.g. sensory cortex) or non-pain-related (e.g. amygdala) aversive processing.This investigation suggests that aversive processing, at the most basic level, relies on similar neural substrates, and that differential responses may be due, in part, to the recruitment of additional structures as well as the spatio-temporal dynamic activity of the network. This network perspective may provide a clearer understanding of why components of this circuit appear dysfunctional in some psychiatric and pain-related disorders.

SUBMITTER: Hayes DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3464596 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Common brain activations for painful and non-painful aversive stimuli.

Hayes Dave J DJ Northoff Georg G

BMC neuroscience 20120607

<h4>Background</h4>Identification of potentially harmful stimuli is necessary for the well-being and self-preservation of all organisms. However, the neural substrates involved in the processing of aversive stimuli are not well understood. For instance, painful and non-painful aversive stimuli are largely thought to activate different neural networks. However, it is presently unclear whether there is a common aversion-related network of brain regions responsible for the basic processing of avers ...[more]

PMID: 22676259

Similar Datasets

Project description:How pain emerges from cortical activities remains an unresolved question in pain neuroscience. A first step toward addressing this question consists in identifying brain activities that occur preferentially in response to painful stimuli in comparison to non-painful stimuli. A key confound that has affected this important comparison in many previous studies is the intensity of the stimuli generating painful and non-painful sensations. Here, we compared the brain activity during iso-intense painful and tactile sensations sampled by functional MRI in 51 healthy participants. Specifically, the perceived intensity was recorded for every stimulus and only the stimuli with rigorously matched perceived intensity were selected and compared between painful and tactile conditions. We found that all brain areas activated by painful stimuli were also activated by tactile stimuli, and vice versa. Neural responses in these areas were correlated with the perceived stimulus intensity, regardless of stimulus modality. More importantly, among these activated areas, we further identified a number of brain regions showing stronger responses to painful stimuli than to tactile stimuli when perceived intensity was carefully matched, including the bilateral opercular cortex, the left supplementary motor area and the right frontal middle and inferior areas. Among these areas, the right frontal middle area still responded more strongly to painful stimuli even when painful stimuli were perceived less intense than tactile stimuli, whereas in this condition other regions showed stronger responses to tactile stimuli. In contrast, the left postcentral gyrus, the visual cortex, the right parietal inferior gyrus, the left parietal superior gyrus and the right cerebellum had stronger responses to tactile stimuli than to painful stimuli when perceived intensity was matched. When tactile stimuli were perceived less intense than painful stimuli, the left postcentral gyrus and the right parietal inferior gyrus still responded more strongly to tactile stimuli while other regions now showed similar responses to painful and tactile stimuli. These results suggest that different brain areas may be engaged differentially when processing painful and tactile information, although their neural activities are not exclusively dedicated to encoding information of only one modality but are strongly determined by perceived stimulus intensity regardless of stimulus modality.

Project description:Recent reports show that focusing attention on the location where pain is expected can enhance its perception. Moreover, crossing the hands over the body's midline is known to impair the ability to localise stimuli and decrease tactile and pain sensations in healthy participants. The present study investigated the role of transient spatial attention on the perception of painful and non-painful electrical stimuli in conditions in which a match or a mismatch was induced between skin-based and external frames of reference (uncrossed and crossed hands positions, respectively). We measured the subjective experience (Numerical Rating Scale scores) and the electrophysiological response elicited by brief electric stimuli by analysing the P3 component of Event-Related Potentials (ERPs). Twenty-two participants underwent eight painful and eight non-painful stimulus blocks. The electrical stimuli were applied to either the left or the right hand, held in either a crossed or uncrossed position. Each stimulus was preceded by a direction cue (leftward or rightward arrow). In 80% of the trials, the arrow correctly pointed to the spatial regions where the stimulus would appear (congruent cueing). Our results indicated that congruent cues resulted in increased pain NRS scores compared to incongruent ones. For non-painful stimuli such an effect was observed only in the uncrossed hands position. For both non-painful and painful stimuli the P3 peak amplitudes were higher and occurred later for incongruently cued stimuli compared to congruent ones. However, we found that crossing the hands substantially reduced the cueing effect of the P3 peak amplitudes elicited by painful stimuli. Taken together, our results showed a strong influence of transient attention manipulations on the NRS ratings and on the brain activity. Our results also suggest that hand position may modulate the strength of the cueing effect, although differences between painful and non-painful stimuli exist.

Dataset Information

Common brain activations for painful and non-painful aversive stimuli.

Publications

Common brain activations for painful and non-painful aversive stimuli.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets