Experimental Pain in Healthy Human Participants Clinical Trial
Official title:
The Role of Sensory Evidence and Expectations in the Cerebral Processing of Pain
| NCT number | NCT04296968 |
| Other study ID # | 03/2020 |
| Secondary ID | |
| Status | Completed |
| Phase | N/A |
| First received | |
| Last updated | |
| Start date | March 1, 2020 |
| Est. completion date | December 1, 2020 |
| Verified date | March 2021 |
| Source | Technische Universität München |
| Contact | n/a |
| Is FDA regulated | No |
| Health authority | |
| Study type | Interventional |
Pain is a highly complex and subjective phenomenon which is not only rooted in sensory information but also shaped by cognitive processes such as expectation. However, the interaction of brain activity cording sensory information and expectation in pain processing are not completely understood. Predictive coding models postulate specific hypothesis about the interplay between bottom-up sensory information and top-down expectations in terms of prediction errors and predictions, respectively. They further implicate brain oscillations at different frequencies, which play a crucial role in processing prediction errors and predictions. More specifically, recent evidence in visual and auditory modalities suggests that predictions are reflected by alpha (8-13 Hz) and beta oscillations (14-30 Hz) and prediction errors by gamma oscillations (60-100 Hz). However, for the processing of pain, these frequency-specific relationships have not been addressed so far. The current project aims to investigate brain activity which reflects predictions, prediction errors and sensory evidence in pain processing using a cueing paradigm. To this end, we will apply painful stimuli with low and high intensity to the dorsum of the left hand in 50 healthy subjects. A visual cue, preceding to each painful stimulus, will predict the intensity of the consecutive painful stimulus (low vs. high) with a probability of 75%. After each painful stimulus, participants will be asked to rate the perceived pain intensity. Electroencephalography (EEG) and skin conductance will be recorded continuously during anticipation and stimulation intervals. This paradigm enables us to compare pain-associated brain responses of validly and invalidly cued trials, i.e. the representation of the prediction error, on the one hand. On the other hand, brain activity related to predictions can be investigated in the anticipation interval preceding to the painful stimulus by comparing trials with low and high intensity cues. Further, we will compare models including predictions, prediction error and sensory evidence to ascertain the involvement of each brain response in processing sensory information and expectation. Results of the study promise to elucidate the interplay of predictions, predictions errors and sensory evidence in pain processing and how they differentially relate to neural oscillations at different frequency bands and pain-evoked responses.
| Status | Completed |
| Enrollment | 50 |
| Est. completion date | December 1, 2020 |
| Est. primary completion date | December 1, 2020 |
| Accepts healthy volunteers | Accepts Healthy Volunteers |
| Gender | All |
| Age group | 18 Years to 65 Years |
| Eligibility | Inclusion Criteria: - Age 18-65 years - Right-handedness - Written informed consent Exclusion Criteria: - Pregnancy - Neurological or psychiatric diseases (e.g. epilepsy, stroke, depression, anxiety disorders) - Severe general illnesses (e.g. tumors, diabetes) - Skin diseases (e.g. dermatitis, psoriasis or eczema) - Current or recurrent pain - Regular intake of medication - Surgical procedures involving the head or spinal cord - Metal (except titanium) or electronic implants - Side-effects following previous thermal stimulation |
| Country | Name | City | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| Germany | Department of Neurology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München | Munich | Bavaria |
| Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
|---|---|
| Technische Universität München | German Research Foundation |
Germany,
Bastos AM, Usrey WM, Adams RA, Mangun GR, Fries P, Friston KJ. Canonical microcircuits for predictive coding. Neuron. 2012 Nov 21;76(4):695-711. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.038. Review. — View Citation
Bastos AM, Vezoli J, Bosman CA, Schoffelen JM, Oostenveld R, Dowdall JR, De Weerd P, Kennedy H, Fries P. Visual areas exert feedforward and feedback influences through distinct frequency channels. Neuron. 2015 Jan 21;85(2):390-401. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.018. Epub 2014 Dec 31. — View Citation
Büchel C, Geuter S, Sprenger C, Eippert F. Placebo analgesia: a predictive coding perspective. Neuron. 2014 Mar 19;81(6):1223-1239. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.02.042. Review. — View Citation
de Lange FP, Heilbron M, Kok P. How Do Expectations Shape Perception? Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Sep;22(9):764-779. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.06.002. Epub 2018 Jun 29. Review. — View Citation
Egner T, Monti JM, Summerfield C. Expectation and surprise determine neural population responses in the ventral visual stream. J Neurosci. 2010 Dec 8;30(49):16601-8. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2770-10.2010. — View Citation
Fazeli S, Büchel C. Pain-Related Expectation and Prediction Error Signals in the Anterior Insula Are Not Related to Aversiveness. J Neurosci. 2018 Jul 18;38(29):6461-6474. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0671-18.2018. Epub 2018 Jun 22. — View Citation
Geuter S, Boll S, Eippert F, Büchel C. Functional dissociation of stimulus intensity encoding and predictive coding of pain in the insula. Elife. 2017 May 19;6. pii: e24770. doi: 10.7554/eLife.24770. — View Citation
Todorovic A, de Lange FP. Repetition suppression and expectation suppression are dissociable in time in early auditory evoked fields. J Neurosci. 2012 Sep 26;32(39):13389-95. — View Citation
Todorovic A, van Ede F, Maris E, de Lange FP. Prior expectation mediates neural adaptation to repeated sounds in the auditory cortex: an MEG study. J Neurosci. 2011 Jun 22;31(25):9118-23. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1425-11.2011. — View Citation
| Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Verbal pain rating (NRS; 0: 'no pain' to 100: 'maximum tolerable pain') | 160 painful stimuli will be applied to the participants' left hand. Participants will be asked to verbally rate the perceived pain intensity of each stimulus on a numerical rating scale (see above). | During 40 minutes of the experimental paradigm | |
| Primary | Oscillatory and evoked brain responses pre- and post-stimulus | EEG including 64 channels will be recorded. In offline analyses, power of oscillatory brain activity will be quantified in the alpha (8-13 Hz), beta (14-30 Hz) and gamma (60-100 Hz) frequency bands. In addition, laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) will be quantified with regard to amplitudes and latencies. | During 40 minutes of the experimental paradigm | |
| Secondary | SCRs (µS) | SCRs will be recorded using two electrodes attached to the index and middle finger of the left hand. | During 40 minutes of the experimental paradigm |