↓ Skip to main content

From the neuromatrix to the pain matrix (and back)

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
473 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
806 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
From the neuromatrix to the pain matrix (and back)
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, July 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00221-010-2340-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

G. D. Iannetti, A. Mouraux

Abstract

Pain is a conscious experience, crucial for survival. To investigate the neural basis of pain perception in humans, a large number of investigators apply noxious stimuli to the body of volunteers while sampling brain activity using different functional neuroimaging techniques. These responses have been shown to originate from an extensive network of brain regions, which has been christened the Pain Matrix and is often considered to represent a unique cerebral signature for pain perception. As a consequence, the Pain Matrix is often used to understand the neural mechanisms of pain in health and disease. Because the interpretation of a great number of experimental studies relies on the assumption that the brain responses elicited by nociceptive stimuli reflect the activity of a cortical network that is at least partially specific for pain, it appears crucial to ascertain whether this notion is supported by unequivocal experimental evidence. Here, we will review the original concept of the "Neuromatrix" as it was initially proposed by Melzack and its subsequent transformation into a pain-specific matrix. Through a critical discussion of the evidence in favor and against this concept of pain specificity, we show that the fraction of the neuronal activity measured using currently available macroscopic functional neuroimaging techniques (e.g., EEG, MEG, fMRI, PET) in response to transient nociceptive stimulation is likely to be largely unspecific for nociception.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 806 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 1%
United Kingdom 8 <1%
Germany 6 <1%
Italy 6 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Japan 3 <1%
Israel 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Other 11 1%
Unknown 754 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 138 17%
Student > Master 113 14%
Researcher 103 13%
Student > Bachelor 96 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 52 6%
Other 197 24%
Unknown 107 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 224 28%
Psychology 140 17%
Neuroscience 108 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 4%
Other 100 12%
Unknown 140 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 22 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,314,575
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#77
of 3,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,034
of 108,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#2
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 108,910 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 92% of its contemporaries.