Pain perception, somatosensory event-related potentials and skin conductance responses to painful stimuli in high, mid, and low hypnotizable subjects: effects of differential pain reduction strategies
Pain perception, somatosensory event-related potentials and skin conductance responses to painful stimuli in high, mid, and low hypnotizable subjects: effects of differential pain reduction strategies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00157-8
复制
发表时间：
1999-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Bellusci, A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
De Pascalis, V;Magurano, MR;Bellusci, A
在这项研究中，研究了深度放松、分离意象、集中镇痛和安慰剂催眠提示下疼痛感知、体感事件相关电位（SERP）和皮肤电导反应（SCR）的变化，并与清醒基线条件进行了比较。从额部、颞部、中央和顶叶头皮记录serp。10名高、9名中、10名低可催眠的右撇子女性参加了实验。得到以下测量结果：(1)疼痛和痛苦耐受评分；(2)右手腕双相电刺激的感觉和疼痛阈值；(3)反应时间和省略反应次数；(4)使用奇数球范式传递的serp对目标刺激的N2 （280 +/- 11 ms）和P3 （405 +/- 19 ms）峰幅；(5)刺激重复诱发SCR数和SCR振幅的函数关系。结果显示，在深度放松/暗示镇痛、分离意象和集中镇痛条件下，高、中、低催眠状态的受试者报告的疼痛和痛苦等级显著降低。在分离意象、集中镇痛和深度放松期间，与中、低催眠水平的受试者相比，高催眠水平的受试者在疼痛和焦虑水平上明显减少。安慰剂组在催眠能力组间无显著差异。与中等和低催眠水平的人相比，高催眠水平的人在分离意象和集中镇痛期间的感觉和疼痛阈值也显著增加。高、中、低组在所有催眠状态下P3峰幅度都有显著降低，安慰剂期间P3峰幅度的降低程度较轻。在可催眠组中，颞叶皮质区是区分SERF反应最敏感的区域。在这个记录区，高度易催眠的受试者在集中镇痛时P3峰明显小于其他可催眠组，N2峰明显大于其他可催眠组。在这种情况下，高度敏感的受试者也报告了最多的遗漏反应和最短的反应时间。与中低催眠组相比，这些被试也表现出更快的scr习惯化。在分离意象和集中镇痛过程中，高度可催眠的受试者比中度和轻度可催眠的受试者显示出更少的scr。考虑到可能的共同和不同的机制来解释不同催眠建议的影响，讨论了结果。(C) 1999年国际疼痛研究协会。Elsevier Science B.V.出版
In this study, pain perception, somatosensory event-related potential (SERP) and skin conductance response (SCR) changes during hypnotic suggestions of Deep Relaxation, Dissociated Imagery, Focused Analgesia, and Placebo, compared with a Waking baseline condition, were investigated. SERPs were recorded from frontal, temporal, central, and parietal scalp sites. Ten high, 9 mid, and 10 low hypnotizable right-handed women participated in the experiment. The following measures were obtained: (1) pain and distress tolerance ratings; (2) sensory and pain thresholds to biphasic electrical stimulation delivered to the right wrist; (3) reaction time and number of omitted responses; (4) N2 (280 +/- 11 ms) and P3 (405 +/- 19 ms) peak amplitudes of SERPs to target stimuli delivered using an odd-ball paradigm; (5) number of evoked SCRs and SCR amplitudes as a function of stimulus repetition. Results showed, high, mid and low hypnotizables exhibited significant reductions of reported pain and distress ratings during conditions of Deep Relaxation/Suggestion of Analgesia, Dissociated Imagery and Focused Analgesia. High hypnotizable subjects displayed significant reductions in pain and distress levels compared to mid and low hypnotizables during Dissociated Imagery, Focused Analgesia and, to a lesser degree, during Deep Relaxation. Placebo condition did not display significant differences among hypnotizability groups. High hypnotizables, compared to mid and low hypnotizables, also showed significant increases in sensory and pain thresholds during Dissociated Imagery and Focused Analgesia. High, mid, and low groups showed significant reductions in P3 peak amplitudes across all hypnosis conditions and, to a lesser degree, during Placebo. The temporal cortical region was the most sensitive in differentiating SERF responses among hypnotizability groups. On this recording area the subjects highly susceptible to hypnosis displayed significantly smaller P3 and greater N2 peaks during Focused Analgesia than did the other hypnotizable groups. In this condition highly susceptible subjects also reported the highest number of omitted responses and the shortest Reaction Times. These subjects also showed faster habituation of SCRs when compared with mid and low hypnotizables. During Dissociated Imagery and Focused Analgesia, highly hypnotizable subjects also disclosed a smaller total number of evoked SCRs than did mid and low hypnotizable subjects. The results are discussed considering possible common and different mechanisms to account for the effects of different hypnotic suggestions. (C) 1999 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.