Searching the Resource Information Network
Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.
Nocebo hyperalgesia is a clinically relevant phenomenon and may be formed as a result of associative learning, implemented by classical conditioning. This study explored for the first time distinct nocebo conditioning methods and their consequences for nocebo attenuation methods. Healthy participants (N = 140) were recruited and randomized to the following nocebo hyperalgesia induction groups: conditioning with continuous reinforcement (CRF), conditioning with partial reinforcement (PRF), and a sham-conditioning control group. In the attenuation phase, counterconditioning was compared with extinction. During induction, participants experienced increased thermal pain in 100% of nocebo trials in the CRF groups, while in only 70% of nocebo trials in the PRF groups. During evocation, pain stimulation was equivalent across all trials. During attenuation, pain stimulation was decreased on nocebo trials relative to control trials for the counterconditioning groups, while pain remained equivalent across all trials for the extinction groups. Results showed that both PRF and CRF significantly induced nocebo hyperalgesia, but CRF was a more potent nocebo induction method, as compared to PRF. Counterconditioning was more effective than extinction in attenuating nocebo hyperalgesia. Neither CRF nor PRF resulted in resistance to extinction. However, compared with CRF, conditioning with PRF resulted in more resistance to counterconditioning. These findings demonstrate that the more ambiguous learning method of PRF can induce nocebo hyperalgesia and may potentially explain the treatment resistance and chronification seen in clinical practice. Further research is required to establish whether attenuation with counterconditioning is generalizable to clinical settings.
Pubmed ID: 32149863
Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.
Registry and results database of federally and privately supported clinical trials conducted in United States and around world. Provides information about purpose of trial, who may participate, locations, and phone numbers for more details. This information should be used in conjunction with advice from health care professionals.Offers information for locating federally and privately supported clinical trials for wide range of diseases and conditions. Research study in human volunteers to answer specific health questions. Interventional trials determine whether experimental treatments or new ways of using known therapies are safe and effective under controlled environments. Observational trials address health issues in large groups of people or populations in natural settings. ClinicalTrials.gov contains trials sponsored by National Institutes of Health, other federal agencies, and private industry. Studies listed in database are conducted in all 50 States and in 178 countries.
View all literature mentions