Evoked pain intensity representation is distributed across brain systems: A multistudy mega-analysis
Petre, B.; Kragel, P. A.; Atlas, L. Y.; Geuter, S.; Jepma, M.; Koban, L.; Krishnan, A.; Lopez-Sola, M.; Roy, M.; Woo, C.-W.; Wager, T. D.
Show abstract
Information is coded in the brain at different scales for different phenomena: locally, distributed across regions and networks, and globally. For pain, the scale of representation is controversial. Although generally believed to be an integrated cognitive and sensory phenomenon implicating diverse brain systems, quantitative characterizations of which regions and networks are sufficient to represent pain are lacking. In this meta-analysis (or mega-analysis) using data from 289 participants across 10 studies, we use model comparison combined with multivariate predictive models to investigate the spatial scale and location of acute pain representation. We compare models based on (a) a single most pain-predictive module, either previously identified elementary regions or a single best large-scale cortical resting-state network module; (b) selected cortical-subcortical systems related to evoked pain in prior literature ( multi-system models); and (c) a model spanning the full brain. We estimate the accuracy of pain intensity predictions using cross validation (7 studies) and subsequently validate in three independent holdout studies. All spatial scales convey information about pain intensity, but distributed, multi-system models better characterize pain representations than any individual region or network (e.g. multisystem models explain >20% more of individual subject pain ratings than the best elementary region). Full brain models showed no predictive advantage over multi-system models. These findings quantify the extent that representation of evoked pain experience is distributed across multiple cortical and subcortical systems, show that pain representation is not circumscribed by any elementary region or conical network, and provide a blueprint for identifying the spatial scale of information in other domains. Significance StatementWe define modular, multisystem and global views of brain function, use multivariate fMRI decoding to characterize pain representations at each level, and provide evidence for a multisystem representation of evoked pain. We further show that local views necessarily exclude important components of pain representation, while a global full brain representation is superfluous, even though both are viable frameworks for representing pain. These findings quantitatively juxtapose and reconcile divergent conclusions from evoked pain studies within a generalized neuroscientific framework, and provide a blueprint for investigating representational architecture for diverse brain processes.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Instructions and experiential learning have similar impacts on pain and pain-related brain responses but produce dissociations in value-based reversal learning 97%
- Assessing the balance between excitation and inhibition in chronic pain through the aperiodic component of EEG 96%
- The neural dynamics of positive and negative expectations of pain 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Effect sizes and test-retest reliability of the fMRI-based Neurologic Pain Signature 96%
- A machine learning based approach towards high-dimensional mediation analysis 95%
- Another's pain in my brain: No evidence that placebo analgesia affects the sensory-discriminative component in empathy for pain 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Pain reflects the informational value of nociceptive inputs. 95%
- Assessing the predictive value of peak alpha frequency for the sensitivity to pain 94%
- Baseline Resting-State Functional Connectivity Determines Subsequent Pain Ratings to a Tonic Ecologically Valid Experimental Model of Orofacial Pain 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.