Sex differences in responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli are dependent upon the stimulation method

Sex differences in thermo- and electrocutaneous responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli were investigated in 20 women and 20 men. Heat pain, warmth, and cold thresholds were assessed on the hand and foot with a Peltier thermode system. In addition, subjects used magnitude estimation to jud...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pain (Amsterdam) 1993-06, Vol.53 (3), p.255-264
Hauptverfasser: Lautenbacher, Stefan, Rollman, Gary B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 264
container_issue 3
container_start_page 255
container_title Pain (Amsterdam)
container_volume 53
creator Lautenbacher, Stefan
Rollman, Gary B.
description Sex differences in thermo- and electrocutaneous responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli were investigated in 20 women and 20 men. Heat pain, warmth, and cold thresholds were assessed on the hand and foot with a Peltier thermode system. In addition, subjects used magnitude estimation to judge the sensation intensity evoked by temperatures ranging from 38°C to 48°C applied to the forearm. To measure detection, pain, and tolerance thresholds of electrocutaneous sensitivity, electrical pulses were administered to the hand. Magnitude estimates of sensation intensity were assessed for stimuli ranging from 0.5 mA to 4.0 mA. There were no sex differences in heat pain, warmth and cold thresholds. There were significant sex differences in electrical detection, pain and tolerance thresholds, with lower thresholds in women. Correspondingly, magnitude estimates were similar in women and men when using thermal stimuli while women judged stimuli from 2.5 mA on as more intense than men when using electrical stimuli. Despite these discrepancies, the measures for pain responsiveness from the two stimulation methods correlated significantly. In contrast, no significant correlations between the methods were found when considering the responsiveness to non-painful stimuli. The findings help to clarify controversies in the pain literature about sex differences. Results affirming and denying such differences could be obtained within a single sample, with stimulation method as the critical variable.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90221-A
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_75885496</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>030439599390221A</els_id><sourcerecordid>75885496</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3463-7b0ac065f6cf5f2976d64cca26f2cc7bd8a98bd1875d0c6f5c2187ddc86d528f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU-P1SAUxYnRjM_Rb6AJC2N0UaVQKGwmeZn4L5nEhbomPLjkoS2tQGf020t99blzBZdzzgV-F6GnLXndkla8IYx0DVNcvVTslSKUts3-Htq1sqeNEJTdR7uz5SF6lPM3QqqLqgt0IRlvW853KH6Gn9gF7yFBtJBxiDhBnqeYwy1EyBmXCc8mRL8M2ESH4xSbv3UuYVyGgE0C7GCG6CAWvNQ0LkfYZFNCrUcox8k9Rg-8GTI82dZL9PXd2y_XH5qbT-8_Xu9vGss6wZr-QIwlgnthPfdU9cKJzlpDhafW9gcnjZIHV7_KHbHCc0vr3jkrheNUenaJXpz6zmn6sUAuegzZwjCYCNOSdc-l5J0S1didjDZNOSfwek5hNOmXboleMeuVoV4ZasX0H8x6X2PPtv7LYQR3Dm1cq_580022ZvDJRBvy2dZJQlRH_t1-Nw0FUv4-LHeQ9BHMUI66josIpkTTKsWIqFWzHrEauzrFoCK8DTWRbVjH50ICW7Sbwv-f_xuYtar7</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>75885496</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sex differences in responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli are dependent upon the stimulation method</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Lautenbacher, Stefan ; Rollman, Gary B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lautenbacher, Stefan ; Rollman, Gary B.</creatorcontrib><description>Sex differences in thermo- and electrocutaneous responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli were investigated in 20 women and 20 men. Heat pain, warmth, and cold thresholds were assessed on the hand and foot with a Peltier thermode system. In addition, subjects used magnitude estimation to judge the sensation intensity evoked by temperatures ranging from 38°C to 48°C applied to the forearm. To measure detection, pain, and tolerance thresholds of electrocutaneous sensitivity, electrical pulses were administered to the hand. Magnitude estimates of sensation intensity were assessed for stimuli ranging from 0.5 mA to 4.0 mA. There were no sex differences in heat pain, warmth and cold thresholds. There were significant sex differences in electrical detection, pain and tolerance thresholds, with lower thresholds in women. Correspondingly, magnitude estimates were similar in women and men when using thermal stimuli while women judged stimuli from 2.5 mA on as more intense than men when using electrical stimuli. Despite these discrepancies, the measures for pain responsiveness from the two stimulation methods correlated significantly. In contrast, no significant correlations between the methods were found when considering the responsiveness to non-painful stimuli. The findings help to clarify controversies in the pain literature about sex differences. Results affirming and denying such differences could be obtained within a single sample, with stimulation method as the critical variable.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0304-3959</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6623</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90221-A</identifier><identifier>PMID: 8351155</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PAINDB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Adult ; Anxiety - psychology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cold Temperature ; Electric Stimulation ; Female ; Hot Temperature ; Humans ; Magnitude estimation ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Nervous system involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous ; Neurology ; Pain - psychology ; Pain threshold ; Pain Threshold - physiology ; Physical Stimulation ; Psychophysiology ; Sensory threshold ; Sex Characteristics ; Sex difference</subject><ispartof>Pain (Amsterdam), 1993-06, Vol.53 (3), p.255-264</ispartof><rights>1993</rights><rights>Lippincott-Raven Publishers.Copyright © Lippincott-Raven Publishers.</rights><rights>1993 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3463-7b0ac065f6cf5f2976d64cca26f2cc7bd8a98bd1875d0c6f5c2187ddc86d528f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3463-7b0ac065f6cf5f2976d64cca26f2cc7bd8a98bd1875d0c6f5c2187ddc86d528f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(93)90221-A$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=4800940$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8351155$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lautenbacher, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rollman, Gary B.</creatorcontrib><title>Sex differences in responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli are dependent upon the stimulation method</title><title>Pain (Amsterdam)</title><addtitle>Pain</addtitle><description>Sex differences in thermo- and electrocutaneous responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli were investigated in 20 women and 20 men. Heat pain, warmth, and cold thresholds were assessed on the hand and foot with a Peltier thermode system. In addition, subjects used magnitude estimation to judge the sensation intensity evoked by temperatures ranging from 38°C to 48°C applied to the forearm. To measure detection, pain, and tolerance thresholds of electrocutaneous sensitivity, electrical pulses were administered to the hand. Magnitude estimates of sensation intensity were assessed for stimuli ranging from 0.5 mA to 4.0 mA. There were no sex differences in heat pain, warmth and cold thresholds. There were significant sex differences in electrical detection, pain and tolerance thresholds, with lower thresholds in women. Correspondingly, magnitude estimates were similar in women and men when using thermal stimuli while women judged stimuli from 2.5 mA on as more intense than men when using electrical stimuli. Despite these discrepancies, the measures for pain responsiveness from the two stimulation methods correlated significantly. In contrast, no significant correlations between the methods were found when considering the responsiveness to non-painful stimuli. The findings help to clarify controversies in the pain literature about sex differences. Results affirming and denying such differences could be obtained within a single sample, with stimulation method as the critical variable.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anxiety - psychology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cold Temperature</subject><subject>Electric Stimulation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hot Temperature</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnitude estimation</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Nervous system involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Pain - psychology</subject><subject>Pain threshold</subject><subject>Pain Threshold - physiology</subject><subject>Physical Stimulation</subject><subject>Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Sensory threshold</subject><subject>Sex Characteristics</subject><subject>Sex difference</subject><issn>0304-3959</issn><issn>1872-6623</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1993</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU-P1SAUxYnRjM_Rb6AJC2N0UaVQKGwmeZn4L5nEhbomPLjkoS2tQGf020t99blzBZdzzgV-F6GnLXndkla8IYx0DVNcvVTslSKUts3-Htq1sqeNEJTdR7uz5SF6lPM3QqqLqgt0IRlvW853KH6Gn9gF7yFBtJBxiDhBnqeYwy1EyBmXCc8mRL8M2ESH4xSbv3UuYVyGgE0C7GCG6CAWvNQ0LkfYZFNCrUcox8k9Rg-8GTI82dZL9PXd2y_XH5qbT-8_Xu9vGss6wZr-QIwlgnthPfdU9cKJzlpDhafW9gcnjZIHV7_KHbHCc0vr3jkrheNUenaJXpz6zmn6sUAuegzZwjCYCNOSdc-l5J0S1didjDZNOSfwek5hNOmXboleMeuVoV4ZasX0H8x6X2PPtv7LYQR3Dm1cq_580022ZvDJRBvy2dZJQlRH_t1-Nw0FUv4-LHeQ9BHMUI66josIpkTTKsWIqFWzHrEauzrFoCK8DTWRbVjH50ICW7Sbwv-f_xuYtar7</recordid><startdate>19930601</startdate><enddate>19930601</enddate><creator>Lautenbacher, Stefan</creator><creator>Rollman, Gary B.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Lippincott-Raven Publishers.Copyright Lippincott-Raven Publishers</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19930601</creationdate><title>Sex differences in responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli are dependent upon the stimulation method</title><author>Lautenbacher, Stefan ; Rollman, Gary B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3463-7b0ac065f6cf5f2976d64cca26f2cc7bd8a98bd1875d0c6f5c2187ddc86d528f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1993</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anxiety - psychology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cold Temperature</topic><topic>Electric Stimulation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hot Temperature</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnitude estimation</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Nervous system involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Pain - psychology</topic><topic>Pain threshold</topic><topic>Pain Threshold - physiology</topic><topic>Physical Stimulation</topic><topic>Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Sensory threshold</topic><topic>Sex Characteristics</topic><topic>Sex difference</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lautenbacher, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rollman, Gary B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pain (Amsterdam)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lautenbacher, Stefan</au><au>Rollman, Gary B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sex differences in responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli are dependent upon the stimulation method</atitle><jtitle>Pain (Amsterdam)</jtitle><addtitle>Pain</addtitle><date>1993-06-01</date><risdate>1993</risdate><volume>53</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>255</spage><epage>264</epage><pages>255-264</pages><issn>0304-3959</issn><eissn>1872-6623</eissn><coden>PAINDB</coden><abstract>Sex differences in thermo- and electrocutaneous responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli were investigated in 20 women and 20 men. Heat pain, warmth, and cold thresholds were assessed on the hand and foot with a Peltier thermode system. In addition, subjects used magnitude estimation to judge the sensation intensity evoked by temperatures ranging from 38°C to 48°C applied to the forearm. To measure detection, pain, and tolerance thresholds of electrocutaneous sensitivity, electrical pulses were administered to the hand. Magnitude estimates of sensation intensity were assessed for stimuli ranging from 0.5 mA to 4.0 mA. There were no sex differences in heat pain, warmth and cold thresholds. There were significant sex differences in electrical detection, pain and tolerance thresholds, with lower thresholds in women. Correspondingly, magnitude estimates were similar in women and men when using thermal stimuli while women judged stimuli from 2.5 mA on as more intense than men when using electrical stimuli. Despite these discrepancies, the measures for pain responsiveness from the two stimulation methods correlated significantly. In contrast, no significant correlations between the methods were found when considering the responsiveness to non-painful stimuli. The findings help to clarify controversies in the pain literature about sex differences. Results affirming and denying such differences could be obtained within a single sample, with stimulation method as the critical variable.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>8351155</pmid><doi>10.1016/0304-3959(93)90221-A</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0304-3959
ispartof Pain (Amsterdam), 1993-06, Vol.53 (3), p.255-264
issn 0304-3959
1872-6623
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_75885496
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Adult
Anxiety - psychology
Biological and medical sciences
Cold Temperature
Electric Stimulation
Female
Hot Temperature
Humans
Magnitude estimation
Male
Medical sciences
Nervous system involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous
Neurology
Pain - psychology
Pain threshold
Pain Threshold - physiology
Physical Stimulation
Psychophysiology
Sensory threshold
Sex Characteristics
Sex difference
title Sex differences in responsiveness to painful and non-painful stimuli are dependent upon the stimulation method
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T08%3A59%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sex%20differences%20in%20responsiveness%20to%20painful%20and%20non-painful%20stimuli%20are%20dependent%20upon%20the%20stimulation%20method&rft.jtitle=Pain%20(Amsterdam)&rft.au=Lautenbacher,%20Stefan&rft.date=1993-06-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=255&rft.epage=264&rft.pages=255-264&rft.issn=0304-3959&rft.eissn=1872-6623&rft.coden=PAINDB&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0304-3959(93)90221-A&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E75885496%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=75885496&rft_id=info:pmid/8351155&rft_els_id=030439599390221A&rfr_iscdi=true