Integration of bilateral nociceptive inputs tunes spinal and cerebral responses.

Together with the nociceptive system, pain protects the body from tissue damage. For instance, when the RIII-reflex is evoked by sural nerve stimulation, nociceptive inputs activate flexor muscles and inhibit extensor muscles of the affected lower limb while producing the opposite effects on the contralateral muscles. But how do the spinal cord and brain integrate concurrent sensorimotor information originating from both limbs? This is critical for evoking coordinated responses to nociceptive stimuli, but has been overlooked. Here we show that the spinal cord integrates spinal inhibitory and descending facilitatory inputs during concurrent bilateral foot stimulation, resulting in facilitation of the RIII-reflex and bilateral flexion. In these conditions, high-gamma oscillation power was also increased in the dorsolateral prefrontal, anterior cingulate and sensorimotor cortex, in accordance with the involvement of these regions in cognitive, motor and pain regulation. We propose that the brain and spinal cord can fine-tune nociceptive and pain responses when nociceptive inputs arise from both lower limbs concurrently, in order to allow adaptable behavioural responses.

Inhibition of Pain and Pain-Related Brain Activity by Heterotopic Noxious Counter-Stimulation and Selective Attention in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain.

The aim of the present study was to assess inhibition of pain and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) by heterotopic noxious counter-stimulation (HNCS) and by selective attention in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. Seventeen patients and age/sex-matched controls were recruited (10 men, 7 women; mean age ±â€¯SD: 43.3 ±â€¯10.4 and 42.7 ±â€¯11.1, respectively). On average, patients with LBP reported pain duration of 7.6 ±â€¯6.5 years, light to moderate disability (19.3 ±â€¯5.7/100) and low clinical pain intensity (21.8 ±â€¯1.5/100), while pain catastrophizing, state and trait anxiety and depressive symptoms were not significantly different between groups (all p's >0.05). HNCS and selective attention had differential inhibitory effects on pain and SEP, but no difference was observed between groups. Across both groups, HNCS decreased pain (p = 0.06) as well as the N100 and the N150 components of SEP (p's <0.001), while selective attention only decreased pain (p < 0.01) and the N100 (p<0.001). In contrast, the P260 was decreased by HNCS only when attention was directed toward the HNCS stimulus (p<0.01). This indicates that patients with the characteristics described above do not show altered pain inhibitory mechanisms involved in HNCS and selective attention. Importantly, this experiment was carefully designed to control for non-specific effects associated with the repetition of the test stimulus and the effect of an innocuous counter-stimulation. It remains to be determined if these results hold for patients with severe LBP and psychological symptoms or whether symptom severity may be associated with pain inhibition deficits.

The mechanism of back pain relief by spinal manipulation relies on decreased temporal summation of pain.

The aim of the present study was to determine whether thoracic spinal manipulation (SM) decreases temporal summation of back pain. The study comprised two controlled experiments including 16 and 15 healthy participants, respectively. Each study included six sessions during which painful or non-painful electrical stimulations were delivered in three conditions: (1) control (2) light mechanical stimulus (MS) or (3) SM. Electrical stimulation was applied on the thoracic spine (T4), in the area where SM and MS were performed. In Experiment 1, electrical stimulation consisted in a single 1-ms pulse while a single or repeated train of ten 1-ms pulses was used in Experiment 2. SM involved articular cavitation while MS was a calibrated force of 25N applied manually for 2s. For the single pulse, changes in pain or tactile sensation in the SM or MS sessions compared with the CTL session were not significantly different (all p's>0.05). In contrast, temporal summation of pain was decreased in the SM session compared with the CTL session for both the single and repeated train (p's<0.05). Changes were not significant for the MS sessions (all p's>0.05) and no effect was observed for the tactile sensation (all p's>0.1). These results indicate that SM produces specific inhibitory effects on temporal summation of back pain, consistent with the involvement of a spinal anti-nociceptive mechanism in clinical pain relief by SM. This provides the first mechanistic evidence of back pain relief by spinal manipulation.

Inhibitory effects of heterotopic noxious counter-stimulation on perception and brain activity related to Aß-fibre activation.

Heterotopic noxious counter-stimulation (HNCS) inhibits pain and pain processes through cerebral and cerebrospinal mechanisms. However, it is unclear whether HNCS inhibits non-nociceptive processes, which needs to be clarified for a better understanding of HNCS analgesia. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of HNCS on perception and scalp somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs). Seventeen healthy volunteers participated in two counter-balanced sessions, including non-nociceptive (selective Aß-fibre activation) or nociceptive electrical stimulation, combined with HNCS. HNCS was produced by a 20-min cold pressor test (left hand) adjusted individually to produce moderate pain (mean ± SEM: 42.5 ± 5.3 on a 0-100 scale, where 0 is no pain and 100 the worst pain imaginable). Non-nociceptive electrical stimulation was adjusted individually at 80% of pain threshold and produced a tactile sensation in every subject. Nociceptive electrical stimulation was adjusted individually at 120% of RIII-reflex threshold and produced moderate pain (45.3 ± 4.5). Shock sensation was significantly decreased by HNCS compared with baseline for non-nociceptive (P < 0.001) and nociceptive (P < 0.001) stimulation. SEP peak-to-peak amplitude at Cz was significantly decreased by HNCS for non-nociceptive (P < 0.01) and nociceptive (P < 0.05) stimulation. These results indicate that perception and brain activity related to Aß-fibre activation are inhibited by HNCS. The mechanisms of this effect remain to be investigated to clarify whether it involves inhibition of spinal wide-dynamic-range neurons by diffuse noxious inhibitory controls, supraspinal processes or both.

Top-down attentional modulation of analgesia induced by heterotopic noxious counterstimulation.

Heterotopic noxious counterstimulation (HNCS) by the application of a sustained noxious stimulus has been shown to inhibit nociceptive processes and decrease pain induced by a competing noxious stimulus. However, it is still not clear how attentional processes contribute to these effects. The main objective of this study was to compare the analgesic effects of HNCS in 2 sessions during which top-down attention was manipulated. Acute shock pain and the nociceptive flexion reflex were evoked by transcutaneous electrical stimulations of the right sural nerve in 4 blocks (15 stimuli/block): baseline, heterotopic innocuous counterstimulation (HICS), HNCS, and recovery. Counterstimulation was applied on the left upper limb with a thermode (HICS) or a cold pack (HNCS). Attention was manipulated between sessions by instructing participants to focus their attention on shock pain or counterstimulation. Shock pain ratings decreased significantly during counterstimulation (P<.001) with stronger effects of HNCS vs HICS in both sessions (P<.01). Furthermore, shock pain inhibition during HNCS relative to baseline was stronger with attention focusing on counterstimulation compared to attention focusing on shocks (P = .015). However, the relative decrease in pain ratings during HNCS vs HICS was not significantly affected by the direction of attention (P = .7). As for spinal nociceptive processes, nociceptive flexion reflex amplitude was significantly decreased during counterstimulation (P<.001) with larger reductions during HNCS compared to HICS (P = .03). However, these effects were not altered by attention (P = .35). Together, these results demonstrate that top-down attention and HNCS produce additive analgesic effects. However, attentional modulation of HNCS analgesia seems to depend on supraspinal processes.