Placebo conditioning and placebo analgesia modulate a common brain network during pain anticipation and perception

Alison Watson, Wael El-Deredy, Gian Domenico Iannetti, Donna Lloyd, Irene Tracey, Brent A Vogt, Valerie Nadeau, Anthony K P Jones, Alison Watson, Wael El-Deredy, Gian Domenico Iannetti, Donna Lloyd, Irene Tracey, Brent A Vogt, Valerie Nadeau, Anthony K P Jones

Abstract

The neural mechanisms whereby placebo conditioning leads to placebo analgesia remain unclear. In this study we aimed to identify the brain structures activated during placebo conditioning and subsequent placebo analgesia. We induced placebo analgesia by associating a sham treatment with pain reduction and used fMRI to measure brain activity associated with three stages of the placebo response: before, during and after the sham treatment, while participants anticipated and experienced brief laser pain. In the control session participants were explicitly told that the treatment was inactive. The sham treatment group reported a significant reduction in pain rating (p=0.012). Anticipatory brain activity was modulated during placebo conditioning in a fronto-cingulate network involving the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), medial frontal cortex and the anterior mid-cingulate cortex (aMCC). Identical areas were modulated during anticipation in the placebo analgesia phase with the addition of the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). However, during altered pain experience only aMCC, post-central gyrus and posterior cingulate demonstrated altered activity. The common frontal cortical areas modulated during anticipation in both the placebo conditioning and placebo analgesia phases have previously been implicated in placebo analgesia. Our results suggest that the main effect of placebo arises from the reduction of anticipation of pain during placebo conditioning that is subsequently maintained during placebo analgesia.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic of study design: each of the two scanning sessions consisted of three scans (preconditioning, conditioning, and post-conditioning). Each scan consisted of 15 trials. The laser stimulus was delivered to the right arm, and to rate the pain participants moved a cursor along a projected 0–10 scale.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mean and standard deviation of pain ratings (0–10 pain scale) during the placebo and control sessions. The same laser energy was applied in the pre-conditioning and post-conditioning blocks in both sessions, set at each individual’s moderately painful level. Mean rating during the placebo session: pre-conditioning 4.82 (0.77), conditioning 2.09 (0.69), post-conditioning 3.77 (1.29), and during the control session: preconditioning 4.68 (0.76), conditioning 2.19 (0.70), post-conditioning 4.26 (1.03).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
(A and B) Sites of increased activation in brain regions that correlate with the intensity of pain stimulation, contrast between the painful (pre-conditioning scan) and non-painful (control conditioning scan) laser stimuli during the control session (Z > 1.8 p = 0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons). Significant activations were seen in areas of the “pain matrix” including; bilateral cerebellum, bilateral insula, left post-central gyrus, brainstem and ACC. (C and D) Sites of increased brain activation during placebo analgesia co-varied with measures of reported pain relief. The magnitude of reduction between control and sham treatment sessions co-varied with the magnitude of reduction in neural activity (control minus sham treatment scans for the post-conditioning blocks during painful stimulation). These structures included the following areas within the “pain matrix”; the left aMCC and PCC and left post-central gyrus (Z > 1.9 p = 0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Significant activations for the subtraction contrast post-conditioning scan minus the preconditioning scan during the anticipation phase of the sham treatment session compared to the same in the control session [e.g., sham treatment (post-conditioning–preconditioning) minus control (post-conditioning–preconditioning)]. The map was cluster-based thresholded at Z > 1.9, p = 0.05 (corrected for multiple comparisons) and the images are shown in axial and sagittal orientations and radiological convention (right side of the brain on the left side of the picture).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Common brain areas activated during pain anticipation in both the placebo conditioning (Table 1a) and post-conditioning (Table 1b) stages compared to the pre-treatment stage. DLPFC (left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) (mni −22, 52, 18, BA 9), left BA 8, mni −6, 44, 34 and left aMCC mni −6, 32, 24. The images are shown in axial and sagittal orientations and radiological convention (right side of the brain on the left side of the picture).

References

    1. Beckmann C.F., Jenkinson M., Smith S.M. General multilevel linear modeling for group analysis in FMRI. Neuroimage. 2003;20:1052–1063.
    1. Benedetti F. How the doctor’s words affect the patient’s brain. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25:369–386.
    1. Benedetti F., Arduino C., Amanzio M. Somatotopic activation of opoid systems by target directed expectations of analgesia. J Neurosci. 1999;19:3639–3648.
    1. Bingel U., Lorenz J., Schoell E., Weiller C., Buchel C. Mechanisms of placebo analgesia: rACC recruitment of a subcortical antinociceptive network. Pain. 2006;120:8–15.
    1. Buchel C., Bornhovd K., Quante M., Glauche V., Bromm B., Weiller C. Dissociable neural responses related to pain intensity, stimulus intensity, and stimulus awareness within the anterior cingulate cortex: a parametric single-trial laser functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosci. 2002;22:970–976.
    1. Casey K.L., Svensson P., Morrow T.J., Raz J., Jone C., Minoshima S. Selective opiate modulation of nociceptive processing in the human brain. J Neurophysiol. 2000;84:525–533.
    1. Charron J., Rainville P., Marchand S. Direct comparison of placebo effects on clinical and experimental pain. Clin J Pain. 2006;22:204–211.
    1. Cohen J.D., Perlstein W.M., Braver T.S., Nystrom L.E., Noll D.C., Jonides J., Smith E.E. Temporal dynamics of brain activation during a working memory task. Nature. 1997;386:604–608.
    1. Craggs J., Price D.D., Perlestein W., Verne G.N., Robinson M.E. The dynamic mechanisms of placebo induced analgesia: evidence of sustained and transient regional involvement. Pain. 2008;139:660–669.
    1. Craggs J.G., Price D.D., Verne G.N., Perlstein W.M., Robinson M.M. Functional brain interactions that serve cognitive-affective processing during pain and placebo analgesia. Neuroimage. 2007;38:720–729.
    1. Forman S.D., Cohen J.D., Fitzgerald M., Eddy W.F., Mintun M.A., Noll D.C. Improved assessment of significant activation in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): use of a cluster-size threshold. Magn Reson Med. 1995;33:636–647.
    1. Friston K., Worsley K., Frackowiak R., Mazziotta J., Evans A. Assessing the significance of focal activations using their spatial extent. Hum Brain Mapp. 1992;1:214–220.
    1. Gu X., Han S. Attention and reality constraints on the neural processes of empathy for pain. Neuroimage. 2007;36:256–267.
    1. Gu X., Han S. Neural substrates underlying evaluation of pain in actions depicted in words. Behav Brain Res. 2007;181:218–223.
    1. Jenkinson M., Bannister P., Brady M., Smith S. Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Neuroimage. 2002;17:825–841.
    1. Kaptchuk T.J., Goldman P., Stone D.A., Stason W.B. Do medical devices have enhanced placebo effects? J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:786–792.
    1. Kong J., Kaptchuk T.J., Polich G., Kirsch I., Gollub R.L. Placebo analgesia: findings from brain imaging studies and emerging hypotheses. Rev Neurosci. 2007;18:173–190.
    1. Kong J., White N.S., Kwong K.K., Vangel M.G., Rosman I.S., Gracely R.H., Gollub R.L. Using fMRI to dissociate sensory encoding from cognitive evaluation of heat pain intensity. Hum Brain Mapp. 2006;27:715–721.
    1. Kong J., Gollub R.L., Rosman I.S., Webb J.M., Vangel M.G., Kirsch I., Kaptchuk T.J. Brain activity associated with expectancy-enhanced placebo analgesia as measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosci. 2006;26:381–388.
    1. Kulkarni B., Bentley D.E., Elliott R., Youell P., Watson A., Derbyshire S.W., Frackowiak R.S., Friston K.J., Jones A.K. Attention to pain localization and unpleasantness discriminates the functions of the medial and lateral pain systems. Eur J Neurosci. 2005;21:3133–3142.
    1. Lieberman M.D., Jarcho J.M., Berman S., Naliboff B.D., Suyenobu B.Y., Mandelkern M., Mayer E.A. The neural correlates of placebo effects: a disruption account. Neuroimage. 2004;22:447–455.
    1. Lieberman M.D., Jarcho J.M., Berman S., Naliboff B.D., Suyenobu B.Y., Mandelkern M., Mayer E.A. The neural correlates of placebo effects: a disruption account 1. NeuroImage. 2004;22:447–455.
    1. Lorenz J., Minoshima S., Casey K.L. Keeping pain out of mind: the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in pain modulation. Brain. 2003;126:1079–1091.
    1. Morrison I., Peelen M.V., Downing P.E. The sight of others’ pain modulates motor processing in human cingulate cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2007;17:2214–2222.
    1. Peng D.L., Ding G.S., Perry C., Xu D., Jin Z., Luo Q., Zhang L., Deng Y. fMRI evidence for the automatic phonological activation of briefly presented words. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004;20:156–164.
    1. Petrovic P., Ingvar M. Placebo and opioid analgesia imaging a shared neuronal network. Science. 2002;295:1737–1740.
    1. Peyron R., Laurent B., Garcia-Larrea L. Functional imaging of brain responses to pain. A review and meta-analysis (2000) Clin Neurophysiol. 2000;30:263–288.
    1. Price D.D., Milling L.S., Kirsch I., Duff A., Montgomery G.H., Nicholls S.S. An analysis of factors that contribute to the magnitude of placebo analgesia in an experimental paradigm. Pain. 1999;83:147–156.
    1. Rainville P. Brain mechanisms of pain affect and pain modulation. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2002;12:195–204.
    1. Rescorla R.A. Pavlovian conditioning, its not what you think it is. Am Psychol. 1988;43:151–160.
    1. Rolls E.T. Memory systems in the brain. Annu Rev Psychol. 2000;51:599–630.
    1. Smith S.M. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002;17:143–155.
    1. Smith S.M., Jenkinson M., Woolrich M.W., Beckmann C.F., Behrens T.E., Johansen-Berg H., Bannister P.R., De L.M., Drobnjak I., Flitney D.E., Niazy R.K., Saunders J., Vickers J., Zhang Y., De S.N., Brady J.M., Matthews P.M. Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage. 2004;23:S208–S219.
    1. Vase L., Robinson M.E., Verne G.N., Price D.D. The contributions of suggestion, desire, and expectation to placebo effects in irritable bowel syndrome patients: an empirical investigation. Pain. 2003;105:17–25.
    1. Vase L., Robinson M.E., Verne G.N., Price D.D. Increased placebo analgesia over time in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients is associated with desire and expectation but not endogenous opioid mechanisms. Pain. 2005;115:338–347.
    1. Verne G.N., Himes N.C., Robinson M.E., Gopinath K.S., Briggs R.W., Crosson B., Price D.D. Central representation of visceral and cutaneous hypersensitivity in the irritable bowel syndrome. Pain. 2003;103:99–110.
    1. Vogt B.A. Pain and emotion interactions in subregions of the cingulate gyrus. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;6:533–544.
    1. Vogt B.A., Berger G.R., Derbyshire S.W. Structural and functional dichotomy of human midcingulate cortex. Eur J Neurosci. 2003;18:3134–3144.
    1. Voudouris N.J., Peck C.L., Coleman G. Conditioned placebo responses. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985;48:47–53.
    1. Voudouris N.J. Conditioned response models of placebo phenomena: further support. Pain. 1989;38:109–116.
    1. Voudouris N.J. The role of conditioning and verbal expectancy in the placebo response. Pain. 1990;43:121–128.
    1. Wager T.D., Matre D., Casey K.L. Placebo effects in laser-evoked pain potentials. Brain Behav Immun. 2006;20:219–230.
    1. Wager T.D., Rilling J.K., Smith E.E., Sokolik A., Casey K.L., Davidson R.J., Kosslyn S.M., Rose R.M., Cohen J.D. Placebo-induced changes in fMRI in the anticipation and experience of pain. Science. 2004;303:1162–1167.
    1. Watson A., El-Deredy W., Bentley D.E., Vogt B.A., Jones A.K.P. Categories of placebo response in the absence of site-specific expectation of analgesia. Pain. 2006;126:115–122.
    1. Watson A., El-Deredy W., Vogt B.A., Jones A.K. Placebo analgesia is not due to compliance or habituation: EEG and behavioural evidence. Neuroreport. 2007;18:771–775.
    1. Woolrich M.W., Behrens T.E., Beckmann C.F., Jenkinson M., Smith S.M. Multilevel linear modelling for FMRI group analysis using Bayesian inference. Neuroimage. 2004;21:1732–1747.
    1. Woolrich M.W., Ripley B.D., Brady M., Smith S.M. Temporal autocorrelation in univariate linear modeling of FMRI data. Neuroimage. 2001;14:1370–1386.
    1. Worsley K.J., Evans A.C., Marrett S., Neelin P. A three-dimensional statistical analysis for CBF activation studies in human brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1992;12:900–918.
    1. Zubieta J.K., Bueller J.A., Jackson L.R., Scott D.J., Xu Y., Koeppe R.A., Nichols T.E., Stohler C.S. Placebo effects mediated by endogenous opioid activity on {micro}-opioid receptors. J Neurosci. 2005;25:7754–7762.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit