Hau Madeleine, Sirucek Laura, De Schoenmacker Iara, Lütolf Robin, Gorrell Lindsay, Hubli Michèle, Schweinhardt Petra
Department of Chiropractic Medicine, Integrative Spinal Research Group, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Neuroscience Center Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Eur J Pain. 2025 Jul;29(6):e70067. doi: 10.1002/ejp.70067.
Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a well-established experimental paradigm to study descending pain modulation in humans, measuring the pain modulatory effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Control conditions using a non-painful CS accounting for modulatory effects not attributable to the painfulness of the CS are seldom included. Thus, this study aimed to differentiate CPM effects from perceived changes of the TS unrelated to the painfulness of the CS by comparing effects of a painful and a control CS on four different TS.
Forty-nine healthy participants underwent a combined parallel and sequential CPM paradigm with a cold water bath (median NRS 8/10) as painful and an ambient-temperature sham water bath (median NRS 0/10) as non-painful control CS. TS were pressure and heat pain thresholds (PPT, HPT) (parallel and sequential) and temporal summation of pain (TSP, sequential) (pressure and heat). Larger TS changes with the painful compared to the control CS were interpreted as sham-controlled CPM effects.
A parallel sham-controlled CPM effect was only detected for PPT (significantly larger PPT increases during the painful compared to the control condition (p = 0.009)). HPT increased for both conditions without a significant difference between conditions (p = 0.152). TSP was successfully induced but not modulated by either CS (p > 0.05).
This study demonstrates sham-controlled CPM effects on PPT, but not on HPT, most likely due to heat adaptation or habituation. This challenges the interpretation of prior studies using CPM paradigms with HPT as TS without a control condition.
This study highlights the importance of including control conditions in CPM paradigms using HPT as TS. HPT increased similarly during a painful and a control condition, most likely due to adaptation and habituation. Although these are known effects, CPM studies rarely control for them. Pressure pain thresholds increased more during the painful than during the control condition, making it a more suitable TS, especially when a control condition is absent.
条件性疼痛调制(CPM)是一种成熟的用于研究人类下行性疼痛调制的实验范式,通过测量疼痛条件刺激(CS)对疼痛测试刺激(TS)的疼痛调制效应。很少纳入使用非疼痛性CS的对照条件来解释那些并非由CS的疼痛性所导致的调制效应。因此,本研究旨在通过比较疼痛性CS和对照CS对四种不同TS的效应,将CPM效应与与CS疼痛性无关的TS感知变化区分开来。
49名健康参与者接受了一种并行和序列相结合的CPM范式,以冷水浴(数字疼痛评分量表中位数为8/10)作为疼痛性CS,以室温假水疗浴(数字疼痛评分量表中位数为0/10)作为非疼痛性对照CS。TS为压力和热痛阈值(PPT、HPT)(并行和序列)以及疼痛的时间总和(TSP,序列)(压力和热)。与对照CS相比,疼痛性CS引起的TS变化更大被解释为假对照CPM效应。
仅在PPT方面检测到并行假对照CPM效应(与对照条件相比,疼痛期间PPT显著更大幅度增加(p = 0.009))。两种条件下HPT均增加,但条件之间无显著差异(p = 0.152)。TSP成功诱导,但两种CS均未对其产生调制作用(p > 0.05)。
本研究证明了假对照CPM对PPT有影响,但对HPT没有影响,最可能是由于热适应或习惯化。这对先前使用HPT作为TS且无对照条件的CPM范式研究的解释提出了挑战。
本研究强调了在以HPT作为TS的CPM范式中纳入对照条件的重要性。在疼痛性和对照条件下HPT增加相似,最可能是由于适应和习惯化。虽然这些是已知效应,但CPM研究很少对此进行控制。压力痛阈值在疼痛期间比对照条件下增加更多,使其成为更合适的TS,尤其是在没有对照条件时。