Psychophysical studies of imagined stimuli: Testing the limits of self-knowledge.
Psychophysical studies of imagined stimuli: Testing the limits of self-knowledge.
复制标题
想象刺激的心理物理学研究：测试自我认识的极限。
DOI：
10.1016/j.pain.2009.07.041
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Yarnitsky,David
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Murinson,BethB;Yarnitsky,David
疼痛研究的几个领域有合并的趋势。在疼痛研究的各个领域，如自我评估问卷、遗传学、神经功能成像和心理物理学，都在努力衡量个体将疼痛强度归因于有害刺激的不同程度。这一期由Ruscheweyh等人撰写的关于疼痛的文章[1]强调了与测量个体对疼痛的反应有关的两个要点。第一个是术语，第二个是疼痛神经生物学中的一个关键要点：对想象的刺激的反应预测临床相关疼痛结果的程度[2]。许多术语被用来描述个体对受控伤害性刺激和疼痛体验的反应差异：疼痛敏感性、疼痛超敏、疼痛反应性、疼痛知觉、疼痛反应性、疼痛反应性和中枢疼痛处理。其中，“疼痛敏感度”一词被最广泛地用来描述个体对有害刺激的反应程度的不同。发表在Pubmed上的一项调查表明，在1973年之前，“疼痛敏感”这个词很少被使用，但从20世纪70年代末开始，它成为许多研究的主题[3]。一个相关的术语，疼痛超敏，可能表示对疼痛异常敏感，但使用频率要低得多。然而，在很多情况下，作者并没有选择“疼痛敏感度”来描述个体对疼痛的反应。造成这种情况的潜在原因可能有几个。例如，在话语中更广泛地使用“敏感”一词就意味着情绪化。此外，其他技术应用中的敏感性侧重于评估区分特别小的刺激扰动的能力。自20世纪70年代以来也被广泛使用的“疼痛感知”一词，隐含着衡量对少量疼痛的反应的含义。“疼痛反应性”一词似乎在二十世纪中叶的心理学文献中已经有了历史，但后来在动物和人类的疼痛研究中被用于描述生物行为和神经体液反应。“疼痛反应性”一词的使用始于1981年，并在20世纪90年代变得更加普遍。据推测，响应性这个词是指这样一个概念，即响应性是通过评估对特定伤害性刺激的反应来衡量的。更广泛地使用这一术语可能不是最佳的原因之一是，在工程应用中，响应度具有特殊的含义：它是刺激-反应曲线的导数(或斜率)。考虑到这里描述的限制，重新考虑是时候了
There is a coalescing trend in several areas of pain research. Studies endeavoring to measure the extent to which individuals differ in ascribing pain intensity to noxious stimuli are occurring in areas of pain research as diverse as self-assessment questionnaires, genetics, functional neuro-imaging and psychophysics. The article in this issue of Pain by Ruscheweyh et al [1] highlights two important points relating to the measurement of individual responses to pain. The first is a point of terminology, the second is a point of critical importance in pain neurobiology: the extent to which responses to imagined stimuli predict clinically-relevant pain outcomes [2].A variety of terms have been applied to describe inter-individual differences in responsiveness to controlled noxious stimuli and painful experiences: pain sensitivity, pain hypersensitivity, pain responsivity, pain perception, pain reactivity, pain responsiveness and central pain processing are among those commonly used. Of these,‘pain sensitivity’is the term most widely used to describe the tendency of individuals to vary in the extent to which they respond to noxious stimuli. A survey of this term in Pubmed indicates that ‘pain sensitivity’was used infrequently prior to 1973 but became the subject in many studies from the late 1970s onwards [3]. A related term, pain hypersensitivity, presumably indicating abnormally increased sensitivity to pain, is much less frequently used. There are many instances however, where ‘pain sensitivity’is not chosen by authors to describe the responsiveness of individuals to pain. The potential reasons for this may be several. For example, the broader use of ‘sensitivity’in discourse carries the connotation of emotionality. In addition, sensitivity in other technical applications focuses on assessing the capacity to distinguish the presence of especially small stimulus perturbations. The term ‘pain perception’, also widely used since the 1970s, carries the same implicit meaning of measuring responses to small amounts of pain. The term ‘pain reactivity’seems to have had a history in the psychological literature of the mid-twentieth century but found later application to describe both biobehavioral and neurohumoral responses in animal and human studies of pain [4]. The use of the term ‘pain responsivity’began in 1981 and became more widespread in the 1990s. Presumably, the word responsivity was chosen to reference the notion that responsivity is measured by assessing responses to a particular nociceptive stimulus. One reason that broader use of this term may not be optimal is that in engineering applications, responsivity has a particular meaning: it is the derivative (or slope) of the stimulus-response curve. Given the limitations described here, it is timely to re-consider