Cargando…
An intensity matched comparison of laser- and contact heat evoked potentials
Previous studies comparing laser (LEPs) and contact heat evoked potentials (CHEPs) consistently reported higher amplitudes following laser compared to contact heat stimulation. However, none of the studies matched the perceived pain intensity, questioning if the observed difference in amplitude is d...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7994633/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33767259 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85819-w |
_version_ | 1783669793794031616 |
---|---|
author | De Schoenmacker, Iara Berry, Carson Blouin, Jean-Sébastien Rosner, Jan Hubli, Michèle Jutzeler, Catherine R. Kramer, John L. K. |
author_facet | De Schoenmacker, Iara Berry, Carson Blouin, Jean-Sébastien Rosner, Jan Hubli, Michèle Jutzeler, Catherine R. Kramer, John L. K. |
author_sort | De Schoenmacker, Iara |
collection | PubMed |
description | Previous studies comparing laser (LEPs) and contact heat evoked potentials (CHEPs) consistently reported higher amplitudes following laser compared to contact heat stimulation. However, none of the studies matched the perceived pain intensity, questioning if the observed difference in amplitude is due to biophysical differences between the two methods or a mismatch in stimulation intensity. The aims of the current study were twofold: (1) to directly compare the brain potentials induced by intensity matched laser and contact heat stimulation and (2) investigate how capsaicin-induced secondary hyperalgesia modulates LEPs and CHEPs. Twenty-one healthy subjects were recruited and measured at four experimental sessions: (1) CHEPs + sham, (2) LEPs + sham, (3) CHEPs + capsaicin, and (4) LEPs + capsaicin. Baseline (sham) LEPs latency was significantly shorter and amplitude significantly larger compared to CHEPs, even when matched for perceived pain. Neither CHEPs nor LEPs was sensitive enough to detect secondary hyperalgesia. These differences provide evidence that a faster heating rate results in an earlier and more synchronized LEPs than CHEPs. To our knowledge, this was the first study to match perceived intensity of contact heat and laser stimulations, revealing distinct advantages associated with the acquisition of LEPs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7994633 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79946332021-03-29 An intensity matched comparison of laser- and contact heat evoked potentials De Schoenmacker, Iara Berry, Carson Blouin, Jean-Sébastien Rosner, Jan Hubli, Michèle Jutzeler, Catherine R. Kramer, John L. K. Sci Rep Article Previous studies comparing laser (LEPs) and contact heat evoked potentials (CHEPs) consistently reported higher amplitudes following laser compared to contact heat stimulation. However, none of the studies matched the perceived pain intensity, questioning if the observed difference in amplitude is due to biophysical differences between the two methods or a mismatch in stimulation intensity. The aims of the current study were twofold: (1) to directly compare the brain potentials induced by intensity matched laser and contact heat stimulation and (2) investigate how capsaicin-induced secondary hyperalgesia modulates LEPs and CHEPs. Twenty-one healthy subjects were recruited and measured at four experimental sessions: (1) CHEPs + sham, (2) LEPs + sham, (3) CHEPs + capsaicin, and (4) LEPs + capsaicin. Baseline (sham) LEPs latency was significantly shorter and amplitude significantly larger compared to CHEPs, even when matched for perceived pain. Neither CHEPs nor LEPs was sensitive enough to detect secondary hyperalgesia. These differences provide evidence that a faster heating rate results in an earlier and more synchronized LEPs than CHEPs. To our knowledge, this was the first study to match perceived intensity of contact heat and laser stimulations, revealing distinct advantages associated with the acquisition of LEPs. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7994633/ /pubmed/33767259 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85819-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open Access This 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/. |
spellingShingle | Article De Schoenmacker, Iara Berry, Carson Blouin, Jean-Sébastien Rosner, Jan Hubli, Michèle Jutzeler, Catherine R. Kramer, John L. K. An intensity matched comparison of laser- and contact heat evoked potentials |
title | An intensity matched comparison of laser- and contact heat evoked potentials |
title_full | An intensity matched comparison of laser- and contact heat evoked potentials |
title_fullStr | An intensity matched comparison of laser- and contact heat evoked potentials |
title_full_unstemmed | An intensity matched comparison of laser- and contact heat evoked potentials |
title_short | An intensity matched comparison of laser- and contact heat evoked potentials |
title_sort | intensity matched comparison of laser- and contact heat evoked potentials |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7994633/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33767259 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85819-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT deschoenmackeriara anintensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT berrycarson anintensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT blouinjeansebastien anintensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT rosnerjan anintensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT hublimichele anintensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT jutzelercatheriner anintensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT kramerjohnlk anintensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT deschoenmackeriara intensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT berrycarson intensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT blouinjeansebastien intensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT rosnerjan intensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT hublimichele intensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT jutzelercatheriner intensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials AT kramerjohnlk intensitymatchedcomparisonoflaserandcontactheatevokedpotentials |