Back

Distinct EEG microstate signatures across different pain types

Rabiei, P.; champagne, a.; Barrette, L.-E.; Fakhry, N.; Masse-Alarie, H.; Coll, M.-P.

2026-10-05 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.09.28.755184 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Pain is associated with dynamic brain reorganization. Electroencephalographic microstates can characterize transient large-scale brain states, yet findings across pain studies are inconsistent. Two features may contribute: conditions have been studied in isolation, and analytical pipelines vary widely. We applied a harmonized analysis pipeline across three pain conditions: capsaicininduced pain, assessed within participants against a pain-free baseline, and non-chronic and chronic back pain, each compared with matched controls. Using a five-minute resting-state electroencephalographic recordings we examined microstate topography, temporal expression and transition probabilities, and directly compared pain related differences across pain states. We identified five microstates (A-E), corresponding to auditory, visual, salience, and attentional networks. Capsaicin pain showed increased expression of microstate C and reduced expression of microstates A, D and E. Transitions were redistributed towards microstate C, indicating a shift toward salience-related processing at the expense of sensory and attentional dynamics. In clinical back pain, effects were smaller and diverged by pain type: non-chronic back pain showed lower microstate C occurrence, opposite in direction to the capsaicin effect, whereas chronic back pain showed lower microstate D global explained variance, suggesting salience and attentional differences in clinical pain. Direct comparisons showed weaker pain-related increases in microstate C expression in both clinical back pain groups than capsaicin pain, with additional differences involving microstates A, D and E. These findings argue against a unitary EEG microstate signature of pain and instead reveal pain-type-specific patterns of large-scale brain dynamics, with microstate C providing the clearest distinction between experimental and clinical pain.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.