Interpretation of subjective ratings within pain research: What about context effects? an induced secondary hyperalgesia example

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Medical hypotheses Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.mehy.2025.111571
Niels Jansen, Marie-Laure A.H.C. Snijders, Jan R. Buitenweg
{"title":"Interpretation of subjective ratings within pain research: What about context effects? an induced secondary hyperalgesia example","authors":"Niels Jansen,&nbsp;Marie-Laure A.H.C. Snijders,&nbsp;Jan R. Buitenweg","doi":"10.1016/j.mehy.2025.111571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In many experimental and clinical studies, subjective ratings of experimentally induced pain experiences are used to evaluate the nociceptive function. However, our understanding of how these subjective ratings are produced and influenced is limited. Not taking into account variability in how the subjective responses are produced, e.g. due to experience with (experimental) pain, might lead to biased, underpowered or even misinterpreted studies or clinical decisions. Here, we illustrate such variability in the case of studying secondary hyperalgesia using High Frequency Stimulation (HFS) as a conditioning stimulus. Recently, different findings have been reported related to the effect of HFS on single electrical stimuli. While most studies report an increased pain rating at the test electrode after HFS relative to the control site, in some studies this difference between test and control ratings is the result of a decrease in pain ratings at the control site. In these reports, the observations are explained by nociceptive mechanisms like habituation or descending inhibition. In our view these mechanisms do not (fully) explain the observable event, nor the differences between the studies. Here, we provide a phenomenological analysis of the observable event and based on this analysis hypothesize that ratings can be affected by prior experience with experimental stimuli (i.e. familiarization with HFS). Acceptance of the hypothesis suggests the (co–)existence of alternative mechanisms at experiments with HFS, as earlier suggested underlying mechanisms are unable to explain these observations. We argue that both the observable event and the differences between the studies can be explained by mechanisms underlying so-called context effects, i.e. well-known phenomena in other sensory modalities whereby the participant’s response is altered based on earlier provided stimuli. Importantly, from a theoretical perspective context effects could (have) play(ed) a role in (many) more experimental procedures within pain research than only when HFS is used, but seemingly to date have not received attention. Consequently, with some experimental procedures within pain research, observed variation might be wrongly attributed to changes in nociceptive function due to an explanatory focus on nociceptive mechanisms. On the short-term, acceptance of the hypothesis highlights an urgent need to perform research in which the effect and magnitude of context effects are evaluated in commonly performed procedures within pain research. On the long-term, dependent on the findings of these studies, this might lead to revisiting not only experimental (familiarization) procedures, but also revising the way earlier results from these experimental procedures have been interpreted.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":18425,"journal":{"name":"Medical hypotheses","volume":"195 ","pages":"Article 111571"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical hypotheses","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987725000106","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In many experimental and clinical studies, subjective ratings of experimentally induced pain experiences are used to evaluate the nociceptive function. However, our understanding of how these subjective ratings are produced and influenced is limited. Not taking into account variability in how the subjective responses are produced, e.g. due to experience with (experimental) pain, might lead to biased, underpowered or even misinterpreted studies or clinical decisions. Here, we illustrate such variability in the case of studying secondary hyperalgesia using High Frequency Stimulation (HFS) as a conditioning stimulus. Recently, different findings have been reported related to the effect of HFS on single electrical stimuli. While most studies report an increased pain rating at the test electrode after HFS relative to the control site, in some studies this difference between test and control ratings is the result of a decrease in pain ratings at the control site. In these reports, the observations are explained by nociceptive mechanisms like habituation or descending inhibition. In our view these mechanisms do not (fully) explain the observable event, nor the differences between the studies. Here, we provide a phenomenological analysis of the observable event and based on this analysis hypothesize that ratings can be affected by prior experience with experimental stimuli (i.e. familiarization with HFS). Acceptance of the hypothesis suggests the (co–)existence of alternative mechanisms at experiments with HFS, as earlier suggested underlying mechanisms are unable to explain these observations. We argue that both the observable event and the differences between the studies can be explained by mechanisms underlying so-called context effects, i.e. well-known phenomena in other sensory modalities whereby the participant’s response is altered based on earlier provided stimuli. Importantly, from a theoretical perspective context effects could (have) play(ed) a role in (many) more experimental procedures within pain research than only when HFS is used, but seemingly to date have not received attention. Consequently, with some experimental procedures within pain research, observed variation might be wrongly attributed to changes in nociceptive function due to an explanatory focus on nociceptive mechanisms. On the short-term, acceptance of the hypothesis highlights an urgent need to perform research in which the effect and magnitude of context effects are evaluated in commonly performed procedures within pain research. On the long-term, dependent on the findings of these studies, this might lead to revisiting not only experimental (familiarization) procedures, but also revising the way earlier results from these experimental procedures have been interpreted.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical hypotheses
Medical hypotheses 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.10%
发文量
167
审稿时长
60 days
期刊介绍: Medical Hypotheses is a forum for ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences. It will publish interesting and important theoretical papers that foster the diversity and debate upon which the scientific process thrives. The Aims and Scope of Medical Hypotheses are no different now from what was proposed by the founder of the journal, the late Dr David Horrobin. In his introduction to the first issue of the Journal, he asks ''what sorts of papers will be published in Medical Hypotheses? and goes on to answer ''Medical Hypotheses will publish papers which describe theories, ideas which have a great deal of observational support and some hypotheses where experimental support is yet fragmentary''. (Horrobin DF, 1975 Ideas in Biomedical Science: Reasons for the foundation of Medical Hypotheses. Medical Hypotheses Volume 1, Issue 1, January-February 1975, Pages 1-2.). Medical Hypotheses was therefore launched, and still exists today, to give novel, radical new ideas and speculations in medicine open-minded consideration, opening the field to radical hypotheses which would be rejected by most conventional journals. Papers in Medical Hypotheses take a standard scientific form in terms of style, structure and referencing. The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Exploring dual applications of gliptins: A potential host-targeted strategy for diabetes and COVID-19 co-morbidity Circadian rhythm as a key target for endogenous testosterone restoration in aging men Correspondence to ’A quantum mechanical explanation for auditory-visual hallucinations by Liam Greenacre’ Using the V127 prion variant for prion disease gene therapy: A hypothesis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1