Counterstimulation and pain perception: effects of electrocutaneous vs. auditory stimulation upon cold pressor pain

This study tested the hypothesis that distraction from a painful stimulus is best achieved by concurrent presentation of a similar stimulus. Specifically, it was hypothesized that pain perception would be interfered with, and thus reduced, when a stimulus similar to the sensory features of a painful...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pain (Amsterdam) 1988-12, Vol.35 (3), p.259-264
Hauptverfasser: Riley, John F., Levine, Fredric M.
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 259
container_title Pain (Amsterdam)
container_volume 35
creator Riley, John F.
Levine, Fredric M.
description This study tested the hypothesis that distraction from a painful stimulus is best achieved by concurrent presentation of a similar stimulus. Specifically, it was hypothesized that pain perception would be interfered with, and thus reduced, when a stimulus similar to the sensory features of a painful stimulus was delivered concurrently. Subjects matched aversiveness thresholds for electrocutaneous or auditory stimulation so that both forms of stimulation could be judged to be subjectively of similar affective value. Subjects were then run in the cold pressor test for 2 min. While control subjects for each modality were not administered counterstimulation concurrently with cold pressor exposure, experimental subjects within each modality condition received concurrent counterstimulation. Magnitude estimation ratings of the aversiveness of Counterstimulation were provided concurrently with cold pressor pain ratings, every 30 sec. The results indicated that, as predicted, subjects exposed to concurrent electrical stimulation produced lower pain ratings than subjects exposed to auditory stimulation and controls. In addition, a mutual interference effect between the cold pressor and the tactile Counterstimulation was found: subjects also rated electrical stimulation as less aversive than auditory stimulation over the duration of the cold pressor test.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/0304-3959(88)90135-2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78667533</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>0304395988901352</els_id><sourcerecordid>15278088</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4333-bf64e87e3ffa3a269c8adfc8ea70f7719a6e86960be0a6e049621f24d3ec4ec83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9PHSEUxUlTo6-236AmrJp2McqfGQa6MDEvrZqYuGnXhMdcIi1vmMKg8duX8b1oV3UDl5t7ftycg9BHSk4poeKMcNI2XHXqs5RfFKG8a9gbtKKyZ40QjL9Fq-eRI_Qu51-EEMaYOkSHnDHRd90K5XUs4wwpz35bgpl9HLEZBzwZP-IJkoVp6X3F4BzYOePoMIRapWjLbEaIJeP7fIpNGfwc0yP-l1SmetgYKi9BzjE9cd-jA2dChg_7-xj9_P7tx_qqubm9vF5f3DS25Zw3GydakD1w5ww3TCgrzeCsBNMT1_dUGQFSKEE2QGpJWiUYdawdONgWrOTH6NOOO6X4p0Ce9dZnCyHs1ta9FNWE-tVrg7RjvSRyIba7QZtizgmcnpLfmvSoKdFLKHpxXC-Oayn1UyiaVdnJnl82WxieRfsUXrAPMSxZ_A7lAZK-AxPmO11TI4Ir0VAlJWX11SytZe3znQyqife-KrL1MFoYfKoJ6SH6_-_1F5YgrjE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>15278088</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Counterstimulation and pain perception: effects of electrocutaneous vs. auditory stimulation upon cold pressor pain</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Riley, John F. ; Levine, Fredric M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Riley, John F. ; Levine, Fredric M.</creatorcontrib><description>This study tested the hypothesis that distraction from a painful stimulus is best achieved by concurrent presentation of a similar stimulus. Specifically, it was hypothesized that pain perception would be interfered with, and thus reduced, when a stimulus similar to the sensory features of a painful stimulus was delivered concurrently. Subjects matched aversiveness thresholds for electrocutaneous or auditory stimulation so that both forms of stimulation could be judged to be subjectively of similar affective value. Subjects were then run in the cold pressor test for 2 min. While control subjects for each modality were not administered counterstimulation concurrently with cold pressor exposure, experimental subjects within each modality condition received concurrent counterstimulation. Magnitude estimation ratings of the aversiveness of Counterstimulation were provided concurrently with cold pressor pain ratings, every 30 sec. The results indicated that, as predicted, subjects exposed to concurrent electrical stimulation produced lower pain ratings than subjects exposed to auditory stimulation and controls. In addition, a mutual interference effect between the cold pressor and the tactile Counterstimulation was found: subjects also rated electrical stimulation as less aversive than auditory stimulation over the duration of the cold pressor test.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0304-3959</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6623</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0304-3959(88)90135-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 3226755</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Acoustic Stimulation ; Auditory Pathways - physiology ; Auditory stimulation ; Cold Temperature ; Electric stimulation ; Humans ; Male ; Pain ; Pain - physiopathology ; Pain - psychology ; Sensory Thresholds</subject><ispartof>Pain (Amsterdam), 1988-12, Vol.35 (3), p.259-264</ispartof><rights>1988</rights><rights>Lippincott-Raven Publishers.Copyright © Lippincott-Raven Publishers.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4333-bf64e87e3ffa3a269c8adfc8ea70f7719a6e86960be0a6e049621f24d3ec4ec83</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(88)90135-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3226755$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Riley, John F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levine, Fredric M.</creatorcontrib><title>Counterstimulation and pain perception: effects of electrocutaneous vs. auditory stimulation upon cold pressor pain</title><title>Pain (Amsterdam)</title><addtitle>Pain</addtitle><description>This study tested the hypothesis that distraction from a painful stimulus is best achieved by concurrent presentation of a similar stimulus. Specifically, it was hypothesized that pain perception would be interfered with, and thus reduced, when a stimulus similar to the sensory features of a painful stimulus was delivered concurrently. Subjects matched aversiveness thresholds for electrocutaneous or auditory stimulation so that both forms of stimulation could be judged to be subjectively of similar affective value. Subjects were then run in the cold pressor test for 2 min. While control subjects for each modality were not administered counterstimulation concurrently with cold pressor exposure, experimental subjects within each modality condition received concurrent counterstimulation. Magnitude estimation ratings of the aversiveness of Counterstimulation were provided concurrently with cold pressor pain ratings, every 30 sec. The results indicated that, as predicted, subjects exposed to concurrent electrical stimulation produced lower pain ratings than subjects exposed to auditory stimulation and controls. In addition, a mutual interference effect between the cold pressor and the tactile Counterstimulation was found: subjects also rated electrical stimulation as less aversive than auditory stimulation over the duration of the cold pressor test.</description><subject>Acoustic Stimulation</subject><subject>Auditory Pathways - physiology</subject><subject>Auditory stimulation</subject><subject>Cold Temperature</subject><subject>Electric stimulation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Pain - physiopathology</subject><subject>Pain - psychology</subject><subject>Sensory Thresholds</subject><issn>0304-3959</issn><issn>1872-6623</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1988</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU9PHSEUxUlTo6-236AmrJp2McqfGQa6MDEvrZqYuGnXhMdcIi1vmMKg8duX8b1oV3UDl5t7ftycg9BHSk4poeKMcNI2XHXqs5RfFKG8a9gbtKKyZ40QjL9Fq-eRI_Qu51-EEMaYOkSHnDHRd90K5XUs4wwpz35bgpl9HLEZBzwZP-IJkoVp6X3F4BzYOePoMIRapWjLbEaIJeP7fIpNGfwc0yP-l1SmetgYKi9BzjE9cd-jA2dChg_7-xj9_P7tx_qqubm9vF5f3DS25Zw3GydakD1w5ww3TCgrzeCsBNMT1_dUGQFSKEE2QGpJWiUYdawdONgWrOTH6NOOO6X4p0Ce9dZnCyHs1ta9FNWE-tVrg7RjvSRyIba7QZtizgmcnpLfmvSoKdFLKHpxXC-Oayn1UyiaVdnJnl82WxieRfsUXrAPMSxZ_A7lAZK-AxPmO11TI4Ir0VAlJWX11SytZe3znQyqife-KrL1MFoYfKoJ6SH6_-_1F5YgrjE</recordid><startdate>19881201</startdate><enddate>19881201</enddate><creator>Riley, John F.</creator><creator>Levine, Fredric M.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Lippincott-Raven Publishers.Copyright Lippincott-Raven Publishers</general><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>7TK</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19881201</creationdate><title>Counterstimulation and pain perception: effects of electrocutaneous vs. auditory stimulation upon cold pressor pain</title><author>Riley, John F. ; Levine, Fredric M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4333-bf64e87e3ffa3a269c8adfc8ea70f7719a6e86960be0a6e049621f24d3ec4ec83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1988</creationdate><topic>Acoustic Stimulation</topic><topic>Auditory Pathways - physiology</topic><topic>Auditory stimulation</topic><topic>Cold Temperature</topic><topic>Electric stimulation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Pain - physiopathology</topic><topic>Pain - psychology</topic><topic>Sensory Thresholds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Riley, John F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levine, Fredric M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pain (Amsterdam)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Riley, John F.</au><au>Levine, Fredric M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Counterstimulation and pain perception: effects of electrocutaneous vs. auditory stimulation upon cold pressor pain</atitle><jtitle>Pain (Amsterdam)</jtitle><addtitle>Pain</addtitle><date>1988-12-01</date><risdate>1988</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>259</spage><epage>264</epage><pages>259-264</pages><issn>0304-3959</issn><eissn>1872-6623</eissn><abstract>This study tested the hypothesis that distraction from a painful stimulus is best achieved by concurrent presentation of a similar stimulus. Specifically, it was hypothesized that pain perception would be interfered with, and thus reduced, when a stimulus similar to the sensory features of a painful stimulus was delivered concurrently. Subjects matched aversiveness thresholds for electrocutaneous or auditory stimulation so that both forms of stimulation could be judged to be subjectively of similar affective value. Subjects were then run in the cold pressor test for 2 min. While control subjects for each modality were not administered counterstimulation concurrently with cold pressor exposure, experimental subjects within each modality condition received concurrent counterstimulation. Magnitude estimation ratings of the aversiveness of Counterstimulation were provided concurrently with cold pressor pain ratings, every 30 sec. The results indicated that, as predicted, subjects exposed to concurrent electrical stimulation produced lower pain ratings than subjects exposed to auditory stimulation and controls. In addition, a mutual interference effect between the cold pressor and the tactile Counterstimulation was found: subjects also rated electrical stimulation as less aversive than auditory stimulation over the duration of the cold pressor test.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>3226755</pmid><doi>10.1016/0304-3959(88)90135-2</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0304-3959
ispartof Pain (Amsterdam), 1988-12, Vol.35 (3), p.259-264
issn 0304-3959
1872-6623
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78667533
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Acoustic Stimulation
Auditory Pathways - physiology
Auditory stimulation
Cold Temperature
Electric stimulation
Humans
Male
Pain
Pain - physiopathology
Pain - psychology
Sensory Thresholds
title Counterstimulation and pain perception: effects of electrocutaneous vs. auditory stimulation upon cold pressor pain
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T15%3A14%3A40IST&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=Counterstimulation%20and%20pain%20perception:%20effects%20of%20electrocutaneous%20vs.%20auditory%20stimulation%20upon%20cold%20pressor%20pain&rft.jtitle=Pain%20(Amsterdam)&rft.au=Riley,%20John%20F.&rft.date=1988-12-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=259&rft.epage=264&rft.pages=259-264&rft.issn=0304-3959&rft.eissn=1872-6623&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0304-3959(88)90135-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E15278088%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=15278088&rft_id=info:pmid/3226755&rft_els_id=0304395988901352&rfr_iscdi=true