Observation of nociceptive detection thresholds and cortical evoked potentials: Go/no-go versus two-interval forced choice.
Evoked potentials
Perception and action
Psychometrics/testing
Journal
Attention, perception & psychophysics
ISSN: 1943-393X
Titre abrégé: Atten Percept Psychophys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101495384
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
accepted:
23
03
2022
pubmed:
7
4
2022
medline:
11
5
2022
entrez:
6
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pain scientists and clinicians search for objective measures of altered nociceptive processing to study and stratify chronic pain patients. Nociceptive processing can be studied by observing a combination of nociceptive detection thresholds and evoked potentials. However, it is unknown whether the nociceptive detection threshold measured using a go-/no-go (GN) procedure can be biased by a response criterion. In this study, we compared nociceptive detection thresholds, psychometric slopes, and central evoked potentials obtained during a GN procedure with those obtained during a two-interval forced choice (2IFC) procedure to determine (1) if the nociceptive detection threshold during a GN procedure is biased by a criterion and (2) to determine if nociceptive evoked potentials observed in response to stimuli around the detection threshold are biased by a criterion. We found that the detection threshold was higher when assessed using a GN procedure in comparison with the 2IFC procedure. During a GN procedure, the average P2 component increased proportionally when averaged with respect to detection probability, but showed on-off behavior when averaged with respect to stimulus detection. During a 2IFC procedure, the average P2 component increased nonlinearly when averaged with respect to detection probability. These data suggest that nociceptive detection thresholds estimated using a GN procedure are subject to a response criterion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35381960
doi: 10.3758/s13414-022-02484-5
pii: 10.3758/s13414-022-02484-5
pmc: PMC9076717
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1359-1369Subventions
Organisme : Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen
ID : P14-12, project 2
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Prog Neurobiol. 2011 Jan;93(1):111-24
pubmed: 21040755
Neuroscience. 2015 Jul 9;298:180-9
pubmed: 25907442
Neurosci Lett. 2014 Feb 21;561:69-73
pubmed: 24361132
Muscle Nerve. 2016 Jun;54(1):146-9
pubmed: 27104656
Neuroimage. 2007 Feb 15;34(4):1443-9
pubmed: 17188898
Exp Brain Res. 2016 Sep;234(9):2505-14
pubmed: 27142052
Exp Brain Res. 2016 Jan;234(1):219-27
pubmed: 26438507
Brain Topogr. 2021 Mar;34(2):139-153
pubmed: 33459925
Behav Res Methods. 2020 Aug;52(4):1617-1628
pubmed: 31965477
J Clin Neurophysiol. 1992 Oct;9(4):456-79
pubmed: 1464675
J Neurophysiol. 2015 Nov;114(5):2672-81
pubmed: 26334010
Diabetes Care. 2004 Oct;27(10):2386-91
pubmed: 15451905
J Neural Eng. 2020 Jun 12;17(3):036026
pubmed: 32235064
Conscious Cogn. 2012 Jun;21(2):961-8
pubmed: 22341937
Pain. 2002 Sep;99(1-2):21-39
pubmed: 12237181
Comput Intell Neurosci. 2011;2011:156869
pubmed: 21253357
Pain. 2010 Sep;150(3):439-450
pubmed: 20627413
Exp Brain Res. 2010 Aug;205(1):1-12
pubmed: 20607220
Brain. 2018 Dec 1;141(12):3290-3307
pubmed: 30462175
Behav Res Methods. 2012 Dec;44(4):924-33
pubmed: 22806702
Pain. 2010 Jul;150(1):199-207
pubmed: 20510515
J Neurophysiol. 2009 Jun;101(6):3258-69
pubmed: 19339457
J Neurosci Methods. 2007 Aug 15;164(1):177-90
pubmed: 17517438
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2015 May;77(4):1440-7
pubmed: 25810158
Eur J Pain. 2020 Oct;24(9):1812-1821
pubmed: 32603504
Brain Behav Immun. 2006 May;20(3):219-30
pubmed: 16571371