This systematic review and meta-analysis critically examined the evidence for bodily illusions to modulate pain. Six databases were searched; 2 independent reviewers completed study inclusion, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. Included studies evaluated the effect of a bodily illusion on pain, comparing results with a control group/condition. Of the 2213 studies identified, 20 studies (21 experiments) were included. Risk of bias was high due to selection bias and lack of blinding. Consistent evidence of pain decrease was found for illusions of the existence of a body part (myoelectric/Sauerbruch prosthesis vs cosmetic/no prosthesis; standardized mean differences = -1.84, 95% CI = -2.67 to -1.00) and 4 to 6 weeks of mirror therapy (standardized mean differences = -1.11, 95% CI = -1.66 to -0.56). Bodily resizing illusions had consistent evidence of pain modulation (in the direction hypothesized). Pooled data found no effect on pain for 1 session of mirror therapy or for incongruent movement illusions (except for comparisons with congruent mirrored movements: incongruent movement illusion significantly increased the odds of experiencing pain). Conflicting results were found for virtual walking illusions (both active and inactive control comparisons). Single studies suggest no effect of resizing illusions on pain evoked by noxious stimuli, no effect of embodiment illusions, but a significant pain decrease with synchronous mirrored stroking in nonresponders to traditional mirror therapy. There is limited evidence to suggest that bodily illusions can alter pain, but some illusions, namely mirror therapy, bodily resizing, and use of functional prostheses show therapeutic promise.
A classical conditioning framework is often used for clinical reasoning about pain that persists after tissue healing. However, experimental studies demonstrating classically conditioned pain in humans are lacking. The current study tested whether non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli can come to modulate pain threshold after being paired with painful nociceptive stimuli in healthy humans. We used a differential simultaneous conditioning paradigm in which one non-painful vibrotactile conditioned stimulus (CS+) was simultaneously paired with an unconditioned painful laser stimulus (US), while another vibrotactile stimulus (CS-) was paired with a non-painful laser stimulus. After acquisition, at-pain-threshold laser stimuli were delivered simultaneously with a CS+ or CSvibrotactile stimulus. The primary outcome was the percentage of at-threshold laser stimuli that were reported as painful. The results were as expected: after conditioning, at-threshold laser trials paired with the CS+ were reported as painful more often, as more intense, and as more unpleasant than those paired with the CS-. This study provides new evidence that pain thresholds can be modulated via classical conditioning, even when the stimulus used to test the threshold can not be anticipated. As such, it lays a critical foundation for further investigations of classical conditioning as a possible driver of persistent pain. PerspectiveThis study provides new evidence that human pain thresholds can be influenced by non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli, via a classical conditioning effect. As such, it lays a critical foundation for further investigations of classical conditioning as a possible driver of persistent pain.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.