Premium
Attentional set effects on spinal and supraspinal responses to pain
Author(s) -
Dowman Robert
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
psychophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.661
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1469-8986
pISSN - 0048-5772
DOI - 10.1111/1469-8986.3830451
Subject(s) - psychology , p3a , cued speech , stimulus (psychology) , neuroscience , cognition , nociception , audiology , somatosensory evoked potential , cognitive psychology , event related potential , medicine , receptor
The effects of attentional set on subjective magnitude ratings, spinal reflexes, and somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) elicited by innocuous and painful sural nerve stimulation were investigated in 24 subjects. Cuing stimuli informed subjects as to whether a visual identification or a somatosensory rating task would follow. Twenty percent of the trials were invalidly cued, where the subjects were expecting a visual stimulus but were given a sural nerve stimulus and vice versa. Subjective magnitude ratings were lower in the invalidly cued condition than the validly cued condition. Attentional set had no effect on innocuous‐related spinal or early cortical responses, nor on the spinal nociceptive withdrawal reflex. The pain‐related negative difference potential (NDP) and P2 component of the SEP were largest in the invalidly cued condition. These results provide further support for our hypothesis that the NDP is generated in part by the anterior cingulate, and suggest that the anterior cingulate response to pain reflects non‐pain‐specific cognitive processes (e.g., orienting attention towards important stimuli in the environment and/or response competition) and not some aspect of the pain experience. The effects of attentional set on the pain‐related P2 suggests that it might correspond to the P3a event‐related potential. If this is the case, the pain‐related P2 could serve as a useful index of neural processes involved in the cognitive‐evaluative aspect of pain.