Motor action changes pain perception: a sensory attenuation paradigm in the context of pain

Topographically selective motor inhibition under threat of pain

ABSTRACT

Pain-related motor adaptations may be enacted predictively at the mere threat of pain, before pain occurrence. Yet, in humans, the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motor adaptations in anticipation of pain remain poorly understood. We tracked the evolution of changes in corticospinal excitability (CSE) as healthy adults learned to anticipate the occurrence of lateralized, muscle-specific pain to the upper limb. Using a Pavlovian threat conditioning task, different visual stimuli predicted pain to the right or left forearm (experiment 1) or hand (experiment 2). During stimuli presentation before pain occurrence, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was applied over the left primary motor cortex to probe CSE and elicit motor evoked potentials from target right forearm and hand muscles. The correlation between participants' trait anxiety and CSE was also assessed. Results showed that threat of pain triggered corticospinal inhibition specifically in the limb where pain was expected. In addition, corticospinal inhibition was modulated relative to the threatened muscle, with threat of pain to the forearm inhibiting the forearm and hand muscles, whereas threat of pain to the hand inhibited the hand muscle only. Finally, stronger corticospinal inhibition correlated with greater trait anxiety. These results advance the mechanistic understanding of pain processes showing that pain-related motor adaptations are enacted at the mere threat of pain, as sets of anticipatory, topographically organized motor changes that are associated with the expected pain and are shaped by individual anxiety levels. Including such anticipatory motor changes into models of pain may lead to new treatments for pain-related disorders.

Does movement preparation enhance attending to bodily sensations in the back in people with persistent low back pain?

Attention has been proposed to play an important role in persisting pain, with excessive attentional processes towards pain information leading to worse pain outcomes and maladaptive behaviors. Nevertheless, research on somatosensory attending during the anticipation of pain-related movements is still scarce. This study investigated if individuals with chronic and recurrent lower back pain compared to pain-free controls, show enhanced attending to somatosensory information in the back while anticipating back-recruiting movements. 43 healthy control, 33 recurrent (RLBP) and 33 chronic low back (CLBP) pain sufferers were asked to perform back-recruiting movements. Before the movement initiation cue, a task-irrelevant tactile stimulus was administered to participants' lower back to elicit somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs), used as an index of somatosensory attending. In contrast to our hypothesis, most identified SEP components did not differ across groups. The only exception was the P175 amplitude which was larger for the CLBP group compared to individuals with RLBP and healthy controls. The current study did not find robust evidence of enhanced somatosensory attending to the back in people with persisting lower back pain. The finding that CLBP, but not RLBP individuals, had larger amplitudes to the P175 component, is discussed as possibly reflecting a higher state of emotional arousal in these patients when having to prepare the back-recruiting movements.

Movement predictability modulates sensorimotor processing

Introduction

An important factor for optimal sensorimotor control is how well we are able to predict sensory feedback from internal and external sources during movement. If predictability decreases due to external disturbances, the brain is able to adjust muscle activation and the filtering of incoming sensory inputs. However, little is known about sensorimotor adjustments when predictability is increased by availability of additional internal feedback. In the present study we investigated how modifications of internal and external sensory feedback influence the control of muscle activation and gating of sensory input.

Methods

Co-activation of forearm muscles, somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) and short afferent inhibition (SAI) were assessed during three object manipulation tasks designed to differ in the predictability of sensory feedback. These included manipulation of a shared object with both hands (predictable coupling), manipulation of two independent objects without (uncoupled) and with external interference on one of the objects (unpredictable coupling).

Results

We found a task-specific reduction in co-activation during the predictable coupling compared to the other tasks. Less sensory gating, reflected in larger subcortical SEP amplitudes, was observed in the unpredictable coupling task. SAI behavior was closely linked to the subcortical SEP component indicating an important function of subcortical sites in predictability related SEP gating and their direct influence on M1 inhibition.

Discussion

Together, these findings suggest that the unpredictable coupling task cannot only rely on predictive forward control and is compensated by enhancing co-activation and increasing the saliency for external stimuli by reducing sensory gating at subcortical level. This behavior might serve as a preparatory step to compensate for external disturbances and to enhance processing and integration of all incoming external stimuli to update the current sensorimotor state. In contrast, predictive forward control is accurate in the predictable coupling task due to the integrated sensory feedback from both hands where sensorimotor resources are economized by reducing muscular co-activation and increasing sensory gating.

Pain and executive function: no association between remote exercise-induced hypoalgesia and cognitive inhibition in pain-free participants

OBJECTIVES

Cognitive inhibition, which denotes the ability to suppress predominant or automatic responses, has been associated with lower pain sensitivity and larger conditioned pain modulation in humans. Studies exploring the association between cognitive inhibition and other pain inhibitory phenomena, like exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH), are scarce. The primary aim was to explore the association between cognitive inhibition and EIH at exercising (local) and non-exercising (remote) muscles after isometric exercise. The secondary aim was to explore the association between cognitive inhibition and pressure pain sensitivity.

METHODS

Sixty-six pain-free participants (28.3 ± 8.9 years old, 34 women) completed two cognitive inhibition tasks (stop-signal task and Stroop Colour-Word task), a 3-min isometric wall squat exercise, and a quiet rest control condition with pre- and post-assessments of manual pressure pain thresholds at a local (thigh) and a remote site (shoulder). In addition, cuff pressure pain thresholds, pain tolerance and temporal summation of pain were assessed at baseline.

RESULTS

No association was found between remote EIH and cognitive inhibition (Stroop interference score: r=0.12, [-0.15; 0.37], p=0.405, BF01=6.70; stop-signal reaction time: r=-0.08, [-0.32; 0.17], p=0.524, BF01=8.32). Unexpectedly, individuals with worse performance on the Stroop task, as indicated by a higher Stroop interference score, showed higher local EIH (r=0.33; [0.10; 0.53], p=0.007, BF01=0.29). No associations were observed between pain sensitivity and any of the cognitive inhibition performance parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

The present findings do not support previous evidence on positive associations between exercise-induced hypoalgesia and cognitive inhibition, as well as baseline pain sensitivity and cognitive inhibition.