↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of anterior cingulate vs. insular cortex as targets for real-time fMRI regulation during pain stimulation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of anterior cingulate vs. insular cortex as targets for real-time fMRI regulation during pain stimulation
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00350
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirsten Emmert, Markus Breimhorst, Thomas Bauermann, Frank Birklein, Dimitri Van De Ville, Sven Haller

Abstract

Real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (rt-fMRI) neurofeedback allows learning voluntary control over specific brain areas by means of operant conditioning and has been shown to decrease pain perception. To further increase the effect of rt-fMRI neurofeedback on pain, we directly compared two different target regions of the pain network, notably the anterior insular cortex (AIC) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Participants for this prospective study were randomly assigned to two age-matched groups of 14 participants each (7 females per group) for AIC and ACC feedback. First, a functional localizer using block-design heat pain stimulation was performed to define the pain-sensitive target region within the AIC or ACC. Second, subjects were asked to down-regulate the BOLD activation in four neurofeedback runs during identical pain stimulation. Data analysis included task-related and functional connectivity analysis. At the behavioral level, pain ratings significantly decreased during feedback vs. localizer runs, but there was no difference between AIC and ACC groups. Concerning neuroimaging, ACC and AIC showed consistent involvement of the caudate nucleus for subjects that learned down-regulation (17/28) in both task-related and functional connectivity analysis. The functional connectivity toward the caudate nucleus is stronger for the ACC while the AIC is more heavily connected to the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Consequently, the ACC and AIC are suitable targets for real-time fMRI neurofeedback during pain perception as they both affect the caudate nucleus, although functional connectivity indicates that the direct connection seems to be stronger with the ACC. Additionally, the caudate, an important area involved in pain perception and suppression, could be a good rt-fMRI target itself. Future studies are needed to identify parameters characterizing successful regulators and to assess the effect of repeated rt-fMRI neurofeedback on pain perception.

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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 173 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 19%
Student > Master 31 17%
Researcher 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 33 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 41 23%
Neuroscience 37 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 12%
Engineering 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 43 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 October 2014.
All research outputs
#13,413,381
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,619
of 3,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,799
of 255,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#44
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 255,213 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.