↓ Skip to main content

MRI scanner environment increases pain perception in a standardized nociceptive paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Brain Imaging and Behavior, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
MRI scanner environment increases pain perception in a standardized nociceptive paradigm
Published in
Brain Imaging and Behavior, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11682-014-9345-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabel Ellerbrock, Arne May

Abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been widely used in neuroscientific studies to investigate neural correlates of perception and higher cognitive functions. Early on, the MR-scanning procedure itself has been identified to create discomfort and anxiety in some individuals, which may influence task performance and perception. The present study analyzed behavioral differences in pain intensity ratings obtained in two distinct situations: MR environment and laboratory setting. Within our longitudinal study design twenty healthy volunteers were exposed daily to an identical paradigm consisting of 60 repeated noxious heat stimuli (46 °C) on 21 consecutive days. After each block of ten stimuli, participants were prompted to rate pain intensity on a visual analog scale (VAS). On days 1, 8, 14, and 21 ratings scores were obtained during a functional imaging scan, whereas on the remaining days the sessions were conducted in a laboratory. It has come to our attention that pain intensity ratings acquired in MR environment were significantly higher than behavioral data collected in the lab setting. Given that the stimuli were standardized and no task or distraction confounded the ratings, it is likely that the attentional focus on noxious stimulation was identical in both conditions. It seems that the highly artificial scanner environment as such is sufficient to increase awareness/alertness. Given that salience rather than pure nociceptive input has been suggested to explain functional imaging results in painful conditions, these findings highlight concerns regarding the comparability of behavioral data assembled across inconsistent settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 9 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2015.
All research outputs
#1,475,078
of 25,018,122 outputs
Outputs from Brain Imaging and Behavior
#69
of 1,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,871
of 365,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Imaging and Behavior
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,018,122 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.