Dataset Information

Insular responses to transient painful and non-painful thermal and mechanical spinothalamic stimuli recorded using intracerebral EEG

ABSTRACT: Brief thermo-nociceptive stimuli elicit low-frequency phase-locked local field potentials (LFPs) and high-frequency gamma-band oscillations (GBOs) in the human insula. Although neither of these responses constitute a direct correlate of pain perception, previous findings suggest that insular GBOs may be strongly related to the activation of the spinothalamic system and/or to the processing of thermal information. To disentangle these different features of the stimulation, we compared the insular responses to brief painful thermonociceptive stimuli, non-painful cool stimuli, mechano-nociceptive stimuli, and innocuous vibrotactile stimuli, recorded using intracerebral electroencephalograpic activity in 7 epileptic patients (9 depth electrodes, 58 insular contacts). All four types of stimuli elicited consistent low-frequency phase-locked LFPs throughout the insula, possibly reflecting supramodal activity. The latencies of thermo-nociceptive and cool low-frequency phase-locked LFPs were shorter in the posterior insula compared to the anterior insula, suggesting a similar processing of thermal input initiating in the posterior insula, regardless of whether the input produces pain and regardless of thermal modality. In contrast, only thermo-nociceptive stimuli elicited an enhancement of insular GBOs, suggesting that these activities are not simply related to the activation of the spinothalamic system or to the conveyance of thermal information.

SUBMITTER: Liberati G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7749115 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

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.

Project description:PurposeRecent studies in epilepsy, cognition, and brain machine interfaces have shown the utility of recording intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) with greater spatial resolution. Many of these studies utilize microelectrodes connected to specialized amplifiers that are optimized for such recordings. We recently measured the impedances of several commercial microelectrodes and demonstrated that they will distort iEEG signals if connected to clinical EEG amplifiers commonly used in most centers. In this study we demonstrate the clinical implications of this effect and identify some of the potential difficulties in using microelectrodes.MethodsHuman iEEG data were digitally filtered to simulate the signal recorded by a hybrid grid (two macroelectrodes and eight microelectrodes) connected to a standard EEG amplifier. The filtered iEEG data were read by three trained epileptologists, and high frequency oscillations (HFOs) were detected with a well-known algorithm. The filtering method was verified experimentally by recording an injected EEG signal in a saline bath with the same physical acquisition system used to generate the model. Several electrodes underwent scanning electron microscopy (SEM).Key findingsMacroelectrode recordings were unaltered compared to the source iEEG signal, but microelectrodes attenuated low frequencies. The attenuated signals were difficult to interpret: all three clinicians changed their clinical scoring of slowing and seizures when presented with the same data recorded on different sized electrodes. The HFO detection algorithm was oversensitive with microelectrodes, classifying many more HFOs than when the same data were recorded with macroelectrodes. In addition, during experimental recordings the microelectrodes produced much greater noise as well as large baseline fluctuations, creating sharply contoured transients, and superimposed "false" HFOs. SEM of these microelectrodes demonstrated marked variability in exposed electrode surface area, lead fractures, and sharp edges.SignificanceMicroelectrodes should not be used with low impedance (<1 GΩ) amplifiers due to severe signal attenuation and variability that changes clinical interpretations. The current method of preparing microelectrodes can leave sharp edges and nonuniform amounts of exposed wire. Even when recorded with higher impedance amplifiers, microelectrode data are highly prone to artifacts that are difficult to interpret. Great care must be taken when analyzing iEEG from high impedance microelectrodes.