PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

432

Title *

Cue-based modulation of pain stimulus expectation: do ongoing oscillations reflect changes in pain perception?use asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Chiara Leu, Esther Glineur, Giulia LiberatiPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2023

Picture

Abstract *

<p>A promising stream of investigations is targeting ongoing neural oscillations and whether their modulation could be relevant for the perception of pain. Specifically, sustained periodic thermonociceptive stimuli have been shown to modulate ongoing oscillations in the theta, alpha and beta frequency bands at the frequency of stimulation. Nonetheless, it remains uncertain whether these modulations are in fact linked to pain perception. To test this relationship, we aim to modulate pain perception using cognitive factors known to influence pain perception and investigate whether ongoing oscillations mirror those changes in their modulation. Using a cue-based expectation modulation paradigm, subjects will be instructed that a visual cue presented to them can precede either a high or low intensity thermonociceptive stimulation. These cues will be paired with 3 different levels of stimuli (low, medium, high). In a first phase, participants learn to associate the low cue with the low stimulus intensity (LL) and the high cue with the high stimulus intensity (HH). Importantly, the medium intensity stimulation is unfamiliar to the subject and will be paired with either a high or low intensity cue (HM and LM) in the second stage of the experiment. We hypothesize that - based on the associated cue paradigm - the stimuli delivered in the HM condition will be perceived as more intense compared to the LM condition. Further, we expect that the EEG signal will exhibit a congruent change in amplitude at the frequency of stimulation if the modulation of ongoing oscillations is indeed related to pain perception.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

pain, nociception, ongoing oscillations, expectation, cognitive modulation, EEG

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Medical Sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2023-03-15 14:41:03

Recommender

Gemma Learmonth

Reviewers

Zoltan Dienes

or Register
Submit a report