Effects of expectation on Somatosensory Event-related Potentials (SEPs) elicited by painful electric stimuli

M.A. Jongsma; C.M. van Rijn; E. van den Broeke; S. Postma; R. van der Lubbe; J.R. Buitenweg; M. Arns; R. Quian Quiroga; H. van Goor; M. Luckers; O.H.G. Wilder-Smith

doi:10.1016/S1090-3801(06)60266-8

Abstract

Background and Aims: Pain perception is typically measured by questionnaires and behavioural responses. Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SEPs) however provide a direct measure of stimulus processing in the brain. To investigate whether expectancy influences SEPs we applied a cross‐modal oddball paradigm. The P3 EP component is modulated by expectancy, anticipation and novelty. We hypothesize that the number of background stimuli preceding the painful target determines the expectancy of the target and consequently the amplitude of the P3.

Methods: A multi‐channel EEG was recorded (band pass 0.1–100 Hz, sample frequency 1000Hz) from 11 volunteers. Trials commenced with 3, to 11 auditory stimuli, followed by a painful electric target stimulus (ring finger, 1ms duration, individually set to a subjective pain intensity level of 9; 0 = no pain; 10 = maximum pain). Inter‐stimulus intervals were 800 ms. After target presentation the participants rated the stimulus painfulness (0–9).

Results and Discussion: An increase in the number of auditory background stimuli preceding the painful stimulus was accompanied with a larger lateralised N130, possibly due to an increase in attention. The centrally localized P350 decreased, as hypothesized, as did the late N450. SEP changes were observed up to 7 preceding background stimuli, after which the effect levelled off. No effects of number of backgrounds was found with respect to the perceived intensity. We propose that SEP P350 components elicited by oddball paradigm behave similarly to P3 EP components observed in other modalities. It will be interesting to study whether cognitive SEP modulation differs between chronic pain patients and healthy volunteers.

Original language	English
Article number	263
Pages (from-to)	S71-S71
Journal	Pain
Volume	10
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-3801(06)60266-8
Publication status	Published - 2006
Event	Pain in Europe V 2006 - Istanbul, Turkey Duration: 13 Sept 2006 → 16 Sept 2006 Conference number: 5

Keywords

METIS-235010

Access to Document

10.1016/S1090-3801(06)60266-8

Cite this

Jongsma, M. A., van Rijn, C. M., van den Broeke, E., Postma, S., van der Lubbe, R., Buitenweg, J. R., Arns, M., Quian Quiroga, R., van Goor, H., Luckers, M., & Wilder-Smith, O. H. G. (2006). Effects of expectation on Somatosensory Event-related Potentials (SEPs) elicited by painful electric stimuli. Pain, 10(1), S71-S71. Article 263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-3801(06)60266-8

@article{f12b820fdf394ad59b434ae7a9ce11c5,

title = "Effects of expectation on Somatosensory Event-related Potentials (SEPs) elicited by painful electric stimuli",

abstract = "Background and Aims: Pain perception is typically measured by questionnaires and behavioural responses. Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SEPs) however provide a direct measure of stimulus processing in the brain. To investigate whether expectancy influences SEPs we applied a cross‐modal oddball paradigm. The P3 EP component is modulated by expectancy, anticipation and novelty. We hypothesize that the number of background stimuli preceding the painful target determines the expectancy of the target and consequently the amplitude of the P3.Methods: A multi‐channel EEG was recorded (band pass 0.1–100 Hz, sample frequency 1000Hz) from 11 volunteers. Trials commenced with 3, to 11 auditory stimuli, followed by a painful electric target stimulus (ring finger, 1ms duration, individually set to a subjective pain intensity level of 9; 0 = no pain; 10 = maximum pain). Inter‐stimulus intervals were 800 ms. After target presentation the participants rated the stimulus painfulness (0–9).Results and Discussion: An increase in the number of auditory background stimuli preceding the painful stimulus was accompanied with a larger lateralised N130, possibly due to an increase in attention. The centrally localized P350 decreased, as hypothesized, as did the late N450. SEP changes were observed up to 7 preceding background stimuli, after which the effect levelled off. No effects of number of backgrounds was found with respect to the perceived intensity. We propose that SEP P350 components elicited by oddball paradigm behave similarly to P3 EP components observed in other modalities. It will be interesting to study whether cognitive SEP modulation differs between chronic pain patients and healthy volunteers.",

keywords = "METIS-235010",

author = "M.A. Jongsma and {van Rijn}, C.M. and {van den Broeke}, E. and S. Postma and {van der Lubbe}, R. and J.R. Buitenweg and M. Arns and {Quian Quiroga}, R. and {van Goor}, H. and M. Luckers and O.H.G. Wilder-Smith",

year = "2006",

doi = "10.1016/S1090-3801(06)60266-8",

language = "English",

volume = "10",

pages = "S71--S71",

journal = "Pain",

issn = "0304-3959",

publisher = "Lippincott Williams & Wilkins",

number = "1",

note = "Pain in Europe V 2006 ; Conference date: 13-09-2006 Through 16-09-2006",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of expectation on Somatosensory Event-related Potentials (SEPs) elicited by painful electric stimuli

AU - Jongsma, M.A.

AU - van Rijn, C.M.

AU - van den Broeke, E.

AU - Postma, S.

AU - van der Lubbe, R.

AU - Buitenweg, J.R.

AU - Arns, M.

AU - Quian Quiroga, R.

AU - van Goor, H.

AU - Luckers, M.

AU - Wilder-Smith, O.H.G.

N1 - Conference code: 5

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Background and Aims: Pain perception is typically measured by questionnaires and behavioural responses. Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SEPs) however provide a direct measure of stimulus processing in the brain. To investigate whether expectancy influences SEPs we applied a cross‐modal oddball paradigm. The P3 EP component is modulated by expectancy, anticipation and novelty. We hypothesize that the number of background stimuli preceding the painful target determines the expectancy of the target and consequently the amplitude of the P3.Methods: A multi‐channel EEG was recorded (band pass 0.1–100 Hz, sample frequency 1000Hz) from 11 volunteers. Trials commenced with 3, to 11 auditory stimuli, followed by a painful electric target stimulus (ring finger, 1ms duration, individually set to a subjective pain intensity level of 9; 0 = no pain; 10 = maximum pain). Inter‐stimulus intervals were 800 ms. After target presentation the participants rated the stimulus painfulness (0–9).Results and Discussion: An increase in the number of auditory background stimuli preceding the painful stimulus was accompanied with a larger lateralised N130, possibly due to an increase in attention. The centrally localized P350 decreased, as hypothesized, as did the late N450. SEP changes were observed up to 7 preceding background stimuli, after which the effect levelled off. No effects of number of backgrounds was found with respect to the perceived intensity. We propose that SEP P350 components elicited by oddball paradigm behave similarly to P3 EP components observed in other modalities. It will be interesting to study whether cognitive SEP modulation differs between chronic pain patients and healthy volunteers.

AB - Background and Aims: Pain perception is typically measured by questionnaires and behavioural responses. Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SEPs) however provide a direct measure of stimulus processing in the brain. To investigate whether expectancy influences SEPs we applied a cross‐modal oddball paradigm. The P3 EP component is modulated by expectancy, anticipation and novelty. We hypothesize that the number of background stimuli preceding the painful target determines the expectancy of the target and consequently the amplitude of the P3.Methods: A multi‐channel EEG was recorded (band pass 0.1–100 Hz, sample frequency 1000Hz) from 11 volunteers. Trials commenced with 3, to 11 auditory stimuli, followed by a painful electric target stimulus (ring finger, 1ms duration, individually set to a subjective pain intensity level of 9; 0 = no pain; 10 = maximum pain). Inter‐stimulus intervals were 800 ms. After target presentation the participants rated the stimulus painfulness (0–9).Results and Discussion: An increase in the number of auditory background stimuli preceding the painful stimulus was accompanied with a larger lateralised N130, possibly due to an increase in attention. The centrally localized P350 decreased, as hypothesized, as did the late N450. SEP changes were observed up to 7 preceding background stimuli, after which the effect levelled off. No effects of number of backgrounds was found with respect to the perceived intensity. We propose that SEP P350 components elicited by oddball paradigm behave similarly to P3 EP components observed in other modalities. It will be interesting to study whether cognitive SEP modulation differs between chronic pain patients and healthy volunteers.

KW - METIS-235010

U2 - 10.1016/S1090-3801(06)60266-8

DO - 10.1016/S1090-3801(06)60266-8

M3 - Meeting Abstract

SN - 0304-3959

VL - 10

SP - S71-S71

JO - Pain

JF - Pain

IS - 1

M1 - 263

T2 - Pain in Europe V 2006

Y2 - 13 September 2006 through 16 September 2006

ER -

Effects of expectation on Somatosensory Event-related Potentials (SEPs) elicited by painful electric stimuli

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this