Bi-phasic activation of the primary motor cortex by pain and its relation to pain-evoked potentials − an exploratory study

Kisler, Lee-Bareket; Weissman-Fogel, Irit; Sinai, Alon; Sprecher, Elliot; Chistyakov, Andrei V.; Shamay‐Tsoory, Simone G.; Moscovitz, Nadav; Granovsky, Yelena

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2017.04.006

Cited by 6 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on ROI analysis, M1 showed two pain related peak activation (see Fig 2 ) [ 48 ]. The latency of M1’s first peak amplitude (M1-P1) was identified for each individual.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Identification of the individual M1 peak activity: The individual M1 neural activity associated with the heat stimuli, in the VL M1 protocol, was estimated using ROI analysis in sLORETA following the pain-alone condition. The ROI, consisting of two right hemispheres' M1 voxels (x = 30, y = -20, z = 45; x = 35, y = -20, z = 45; voxel size: 5mm 3 ) was chosen based on a previous study with similar CHEPs recording, specifically looking at M1 [ 48 ]. The average current density of 0.2 msec time frames between 0–500 msec after stimulus onset was extracted from the ROIs and analyzed in Excel.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The average current density of 0.2 msec time frames between 0–500 msec after stimulus onset was extracted from the ROIs and analyzed in Excel. Based on our previous study [ 48 ], that showed M1 first peak activity (maximum amplitude) occurs during 230–300 msec following stimulus onset, the timing of the TMS pulse was determined relative to the individual's M1 first peak activity, within this time frame. In order to achieve maximal interference with the M1 ongoing activity, the TMS pulse was applied 20 msec prior to the individual M1 first peak activity [ 35 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can a single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation targeted to the motor cortex interrupt pain processing?

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The modulatory role of the primary motor cortex (M1), reflected by an inhibitory effect of M1-stimulation on clinical pain, motivated us to deepen our understanding of M1’s role in pain modulation. We used Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)-induced virtual lesion (VL) to interrupt with M1 activity during noxious heat pain. We hypothesized that TMS-VL will effect experimental pain ratings. Three VL protocols were applied consisting of single-pulse TMS to transiently interfere with right M1 activity: (1) VLM1- TMS applied to 11 subjects, 20 msec before the individual’s first pain-related M1 peak activation, as determined by source analysis (sLORETA), (2) VL-50 (N = 16; TMS applied 50 ms prior to noxious stimulus onset), and (3) VL+150 (N = 16; TMS applied 150 ms after noxious stimulus onset). Each protocol included 3 conditions ('pain-alone', ' TMS-VL', and ‘SHAM-VL’), each consisted of 30 noxious heat stimuli. Pain ratings were compared, in each protocol, for TMS-VL vs. SHAM-VL and vs. pain-alone conditions. Repeated measures analysis of variance, corrected for multiple comparisons revealed no significant differences in the pain ratings between the different conditions within each protocol. Therefore, our results from this exploratory study suggest that a single pulse TMS-induced VL that is targeted to M1 failed to interrupt experimental pain processing in the specific three stimulation timing examined here.

show abstract

“…Based on ROI analysis, M1 showed two pain related peak activation (see Fig 2 ) [ 48 ]. The latency of M1’s first peak amplitude (M1-P1) was identified for each individual.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can a single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation targeted to the motor cortex interrupt pain processing?

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Event-related potentials (ERPs) have been widely studied in pain research. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Researchers make use of "the signal change evoked in response to a stimulus event to elucidate the timing, intensity and spatial location of the underlying brain activity." 19 A specific kind of ERP, used in pain investigation, is the contact-heat-evoked potential (CHEP), which is obtained through rapidly delivered, noxious heat stimulations known to activate both Aδ and C fiber nociceptors.…”

Section: Cerebral Features Of Thermal Heat Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19 A specific kind of ERP, used in pain investigation, is the contact-heat-evoked potential (CHEP), which is obtained through rapidly delivered, noxious heat stimulations known to activate both Aδ and C fiber nociceptors. 23 For most studies examined, a series of brief heat stimuli were administrated to the nondominant forearm [16][17][18][20][21][22]24 with the exception of one study that tested on the right leg. 19 In all cases, cortical responses associated with CHEPs were characterized by the presence of 2 main components: a negative potential (N2) followed by a positive potential (P2).…”

Section: Cerebral Features Of Thermal Heat Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical use of Electroencephalography in the Assessment of Acute Thermal Pain: A Narrative Review Based on Articles From 2009 to 2019

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, no practical system has successfully been able to decode and predict pain in clinical settings. The inability of some patients to verbally express their pain creates the need for a tool that could objectively assess pain in these individuals. Neuroimaging techniques combined with machine learning are seen as possible candidates for the identification of pain biomarkers. This review aimed to address the potential use of electroencephalographic features as predictors of acute experimental pain. Twenty-six studies using only thermal stimulations were identified using a PubMed and Scopus search. Combinations of the following terms were used: “EEG,” “Electroencephalography,” “Acute,” “Pain,” “Tonic,” “Noxious,” “Thermal,” “Stimulation,” “Brain,” “Activity,” “Cold,” “Subjective,” and “Perception.” Results revealed that contact-heat-evoked potentials have been widely recorded over central areas during noxious heat stimulations. Furthermore, a decrease in alpha power over central regions was revealed, as well as increased theta and gamma powers over frontal areas. Gamma and theta rhythms were associated with connectivity between sensory and affective regions involved in pain processing. A machine learning analysis revealed that the gamma band is a predominant predictor of acute thermal pain. This review also addressed the need of supplementing current spectral features with techniques that allow the investigation of network dynamics.

show abstract

Clinical neurophysiology of pain

Lefaucheur

2019

Handbook of Clinical Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bi-phasic activation of the primary motor cortex by pain and its relation to pain-evoked potentials − an exploratory study

Cited by 6 publications

References 61 publications

Can a single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation targeted to the motor cortex interrupt pain processing?

Can a single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation targeted to the motor cortex interrupt pain processing?

Clinical use of Electroencephalography in the Assessment of Acute Thermal Pain: A Narrative Review Based on Articles From 2009 to 2019

Clinical neurophysiology of pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About