Cargando…

Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation

BACKGROUND: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Using painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) as TS and painful cold water as CS, the pain relief was paralleled by a decrease in evoked potentials (PCE...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Do, A. T. L., Enax-Krumova, E. K., Özgül, Ö., Eitner, L. B., Heba, S., Tegenthoff, M., Maier, C., Höffken, O.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7720448/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33287715
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12868-020-00604-1
_version_ 1783619851501174784
author Do, A. T. L.
Enax-Krumova, E. K.
Özgül, Ö.
Eitner, L. B.
Heba, S.
Tegenthoff, M.
Maier, C.
Höffken, O.
author_facet Do, A. T. L.
Enax-Krumova, E. K.
Özgül, Ö.
Eitner, L. B.
Heba, S.
Tegenthoff, M.
Maier, C.
Höffken, O.
author_sort Do, A. T. L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Using painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) as TS and painful cold water as CS, the pain relief was paralleled by a decrease in evoked potentials (PCES-EPs). We now aimed to compare the effect of CPM with cognitive distraction on PCES-induced pain and PCES-EP amplitudes. METHODS: PCES was performed using surface electrodes inducing a painful sensation of 60 (NRS 0–100) on one hand. In a crossover design healthy subjects (included: n = 38, analyzed: n = 23) immersed the contralateral hand into 10 °C cold water (CS) for CPM evaluation and performed the 1-back task for cognitive distraction. Before and during the CS and 1-back task, respectively, subjects rated the pain intensity of PCES and simultaneously cortical evoked potentials were recorded. RESULTS: Both CPM and cognitive distraction significantly reduced PCES-EP amplitudes (CPM: 27.6 ± 12.0 μV to 20.2 ± 9.5 μV, cognitive distraction: 30.3 ± 14.2 µV to 13.6 ± 5.2 μV, p < 0.001) and PCES-induced pain (on a 0–100 numerical rating scale: CPM: 58 ± 4 to 41.1 ± 12.3, cognitive distraction: 58.3 ± 4.4 to 38.0 ± 13.0, p < 0.001), though the changes in pain intensity and PCES-amplitude did not correlate. The changes of the PCES-EP amplitudes during cognitive distraction were more pronounced than during CPM (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CPM and cognitive distraction reduced the PCES-induced pain to a similar extent. The more pronounced decrease of PCES-EP amplitudes after distraction by a cognitive task implies that both conditions might not represent the general pain modulatory capacity of individuals, but may underlie different neuronal mechanisms with the final common pathway of perceived pain reduction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7720448
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77204482020-12-07 Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation Do, A. T. L. Enax-Krumova, E. K. Özgül, Ö. Eitner, L. B. Heba, S. Tegenthoff, M. Maier, C. Höffken, O. BMC Neurosci Research Article BACKGROUND: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Using painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) as TS and painful cold water as CS, the pain relief was paralleled by a decrease in evoked potentials (PCES-EPs). We now aimed to compare the effect of CPM with cognitive distraction on PCES-induced pain and PCES-EP amplitudes. METHODS: PCES was performed using surface electrodes inducing a painful sensation of 60 (NRS 0–100) on one hand. In a crossover design healthy subjects (included: n = 38, analyzed: n = 23) immersed the contralateral hand into 10 °C cold water (CS) for CPM evaluation and performed the 1-back task for cognitive distraction. Before and during the CS and 1-back task, respectively, subjects rated the pain intensity of PCES and simultaneously cortical evoked potentials were recorded. RESULTS: Both CPM and cognitive distraction significantly reduced PCES-EP amplitudes (CPM: 27.6 ± 12.0 μV to 20.2 ± 9.5 μV, cognitive distraction: 30.3 ± 14.2 µV to 13.6 ± 5.2 μV, p < 0.001) and PCES-induced pain (on a 0–100 numerical rating scale: CPM: 58 ± 4 to 41.1 ± 12.3, cognitive distraction: 58.3 ± 4.4 to 38.0 ± 13.0, p < 0.001), though the changes in pain intensity and PCES-amplitude did not correlate. The changes of the PCES-EP amplitudes during cognitive distraction were more pronounced than during CPM (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CPM and cognitive distraction reduced the PCES-induced pain to a similar extent. The more pronounced decrease of PCES-EP amplitudes after distraction by a cognitive task implies that both conditions might not represent the general pain modulatory capacity of individuals, but may underlie different neuronal mechanisms with the final common pathway of perceived pain reduction. BioMed Central 2020-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7720448/ /pubmed/33287715 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12868-020-00604-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Do, A. T. L.
Enax-Krumova, E. K.
Özgül, Ö.
Eitner, L. B.
Heba, S.
Tegenthoff, M.
Maier, C.
Höffken, O.
Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation
title Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation
title_full Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation
title_fullStr Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation
title_full_unstemmed Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation
title_short Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation
title_sort distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7720448/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33287715
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12868-020-00604-1
work_keys_str_mv AT doatl distractionbyacognitivetaskhasahigherimpactonelectrophysiologicalmeasurescomparedwithconditionedpainmodulation
AT enaxkrumovaek distractionbyacognitivetaskhasahigherimpactonelectrophysiologicalmeasurescomparedwithconditionedpainmodulation
AT ozgulo distractionbyacognitivetaskhasahigherimpactonelectrophysiologicalmeasurescomparedwithconditionedpainmodulation
AT eitnerlb distractionbyacognitivetaskhasahigherimpactonelectrophysiologicalmeasurescomparedwithconditionedpainmodulation
AT hebas distractionbyacognitivetaskhasahigherimpactonelectrophysiologicalmeasurescomparedwithconditionedpainmodulation
AT tegenthoffm distractionbyacognitivetaskhasahigherimpactonelectrophysiologicalmeasurescomparedwithconditionedpainmodulation
AT maierc distractionbyacognitivetaskhasahigherimpactonelectrophysiologicalmeasurescomparedwithconditionedpainmodulation
AT hoffkeno distractionbyacognitivetaskhasahigherimpactonelectrophysiologicalmeasurescomparedwithconditionedpainmodulation