The Brain Opioid Theory of Social Attachment a Review of the Evidence

The notion of a neuromatrix of the encephalon is a theoretical model that explains the nature of pain, including chronic hurting. Ronald Melzack, PhD, a psychologist, and one of the founding fathers of the field of pain direction as we know information technology today, developed the theory and published it in a series of papers at the cease of the last century.^{1, 2, three, 4} Melzack had previously revolutionized the field of pain management in an before theory that he had developed and published with his physician colleague, Patrick Wall, in what is known every bit the gate command theory of hurting.⁵ Few theories in modern science have spawned more empirical research than those of the gate control theory of pain and the neuromatrix of pain. Indeed, while technically theories, the field largely considers these models equally authentic explanations of the nature of pain, given the great wealth of empirical show that at present confirms them. So, what is this notion of the neuromatrix of the brain that explains the nature of pain?

Essentially, the model of the neuromatrix is that the fundamental nervous system, which is made up past the brain and spinal string, is where pain is produced and that multiple parts of the encephalon and spinal cord work together in response to stimuli from the body and/or the environment to create the feel of pain. It thus involves two important shifts in our agreement of pain:

• The encephalon and spinal cord are what produce pain, not tissue damage
• Various parts of the central nervous system work together to produce pain

In this mode, the location of what produces hurting shifts from tissue damage in the torso and the peripheral nervous organisation that surrounds it to the key nervous system.

Neuromatrix model contrasted with the Cartesian model of pain

This model of the neuromatrix stands in dissimilarity to a long held explanatory model of hurting that assembly the production of pain with tissue damage and its resultant detection by the peripheral nervous organization. This latter model tends to equate nociception with hurting. Nociception is a term used to refer to nerve impulses, or what are often referred to as "pain signals." In this view, the peripheral nervous system detects painful tissue damage, which so sends "hurting signals" to the central nervous organization, including the brain, where the pain registers as a conscious experience in the brain. The spinal cord and encephalon are simply receivers of the pain that is sent from the site of tissue damage by the peripheral nervous organization. This explanatory model of pain thus privileges the peripheral nervous system and tissue damage over the brain and spinal cord when it comes to the production of pain. This model was originally adult by the philosopher Rene DesCartes⁶ and nonetheless finds adherents today in certain disciplines inside the field of chronic pain direction, specifically many interventional hurting physicians and spine surgeons, both of whom continue to look for "pain generators" in putative tissue impairment (eastward.g., such as degenerative changes to the spine) and the surrounding peripheral nervous organization.

This Cartesian view of pain holds neat sway. We hurt ourselves, say, by cutting a finger while chopping vegetables, and the finger hurts. The site of hurting is thus hands equated with the crusade of pain: what produces the pain is the cutting. The peripheral nerves in the finger and manus pick up on the tissue damage and send this information in the form of pain signals to the encephalon via the spinal cord. The central nervous system, (i.e., the spinal cord and brain), serve the secondary part of receivers of the pain. Their role, as information technology were, is to register the pain as a conscious experience –- we become conscious of the pain in the finger. What takes primary importance, in this view, is the hurting generator of tissue damage and the surrounding peripheral fretfulness within the surface area of the tissue damage, in this case, in the finger and hand. This model of pain seems common sense.

Melzack noticed, however, that the Cartesian model of pain doesn't fit many cases in which we feel pain. He was peculiarly interested, for case, in phantom limb pain because the Cartesian model starkly fails to explain its nature (see this brief video on Melzack hither). Phantom limb hurting is pain in an amputated limb. A person, for instance, might feel pain in a foot, even though he no longer has a foot due to, say, a below-the-knee joint amputation. Phantom limb pain is real pain, but it has no corresponding tissue damage in the area in which the pain is felt. Indeed, at that place isn't fifty-fifty whatever respective tissue in the expanse of pain, for there is no actual limb. As such, the hurting generator cannot exist in the foot, because the human foot is no longer there. Therefore, the central nervous arrangement must be more a passive receiver of pain signals from the site of injury via the peripheral nervous system. The pain generator, Melzack thus argued, must exist in the intact central nervous system.

We don't have to look to uncommon and intriguing conditions similar phantom limb hurting to come across that the spinal cord and brain must be actively producing pain. A long-known, merely little acknowledged, fact about hurting is that it tends to have fiddling to no correlation to the extent of tissue damage. This fact stubbornly asserts itself in both enquiry and in the clinic. In studies across multiple pain conditions, objective findings have no clinically significant correlation to hurting levels^{7, 8, 9, x}(run across, for example, this review of the relationship betwixt degenerative disc disease and pain). In dispensary, providers encounter these enquiry findings play out everyday in the wide range of people who nowadays with or without hurting. Normally, people come up to clinic with extensive or severe objective findings of some course of tissue damage, which, if the Cartesian model were true, should exist uncommonly painful, simply these people don't study pain or study only minimal hurting. Just as commonly, however other people nowadays to clinic reporting severe hurting without any objective findings of tissue damage or only minimal tissue harm. The Cartesian model of hurting would inform united states of america that these latter people shouldn't have hurting or at to the lowest degree not as much hurting as they report, but hither they are, reporting loftier levels of pain. The fact that pain has niggling to no correlation with tissue impairment in whatsoever of its diverse forms is 1 of those stubborn facts that keeps declining to fit the unremarkably held Cartesian model of hurting.

Permit'south have some common examples of how this lack of correlation between tissue damage and pain plays out in the dispensary and in patients.

Non-specific low back hurting is the nigh common form of low back pain.^{11, 12} What non-specific means is that the pain in the low dorsum has no specific, identifiable tissue damage that can business relationship for the pain. MRI or CT scans, for instance, tin place no tears in the ligaments or whatever disc-related degenerative changes to the spine. In other cases, the scans might identify some blazon of muscular or disc-related abnormalities, but they are of a kind or in a location that would make it impossible to take any direct, causal human relationship to the hurting that the patient has (such findings are common and called incidental). As such, patients present with existent dorsum hurting, only have no identifiable tissue damage that might cause it. As indicated, this type of back pain is the virtually common form of dorsum hurting.

All-too-often, what happens in these kinds of cases is that healthcare providers might acknowledge the lack of meaningful correlation betwixt tissue damage and pain, merely then look the other way and keep the search for some class of tissue damage, such equally degenerative changes in the spine, on which to pursue surgical or interventional procedures. The assumption is that there must be some form of tissue damage, equally the Cartesian model dictates, or, if there isn't, the pain is in some way not as existent equally it might be were there specific tissue impairment. This do can lead to an exhaustive investigation for the putative "pain generator" in the spine through the use of scans, discographies, diagnostic injections, and diverse therapies that are pursued on a trial-and-error ground, often leading to multiple interventional pain procedures and/or spine surgeries. This adherence to the Cartesian model of pain fails to heed the stubborn fact that tissue damage tends to have picayune to no correlation with pain and so must be largely independent of whatever produces pain. It too fails to adjust to a wealth of basic hurting science that confirms Melzack's theory that pain lies in the brain, not in putative tissue damage.

Fibromyalgia has long been considered a mysterious condition considering it'southward a mutual widespread pain disorder without whatsoever identifiable tissue harm despite decades of inquiry attempting to find it. However, it's only mysterious when we unwittingly hold to the Cartesian model that all real pain is pain attributable to tissue damage that sends "pain signals" via the peripheral nervous system to a passive recipient otherwise known every bit the central nervous system. If nosotros put down the model and see the reality of those who are presenting to usa with fibromyalgia, nosotros brand room for the possibility that there must exist a dissimilar explanation for how humans can come to have hurting. We make room for the notion that the fundamental nervous system is what generates pain.

Wittgenstein, who might have rightly laid claim to take been the commencement not-Cartesian philosopher since DesCartes himself, was fond of observing our human being capacity to become captivated by an explanatory model of a detail miracle and thus come up to see all instances of this miracle in the light of the model; in then doing, we afterwards fail to mind, or even see, whatever of those stubborn instances that neglect to fit the model.¹³ In light of this tendency to become absorbed by our explanatory model, he persistently challenged u.s. to await and see those stubborn facts and learn from them – acquire to change our perspective to allow for a more than encompassing understanding of the phenomenon in question.

This change in our perspective on pain is what Melzack identified and explained in his theory of the neuromatrix of pain. Equally such, Melzack might rightly lay merits to be the first non-Cartesian pain good. He looked at hurting conditions that don't fit the Cartesian model, and rather than seeing them equally mysterious or not as real in some way as pain that has corresponding tissue damage, he posited an over-arching idea that explains hurting of all kinds – pain that has and does not take respective tissue damage. In this way, the notion of the neuromatrix of the brain identifies the centrality of pain. It locates the production of pain in the brain, not in tissue damage inside the torso or its surrounding peripheral nervous system. In and then doing, he makes room for understanding how pain is largely contained of tissue harm, something that empirically we keep finding but heretofore did not have a model that allowed for understanding it.

The Production of Multiple Areas of the CNS Working Together

The notion of the neuromatrix also involves the idea that multiple parts of the central nervous organisation piece of work together to generate hurting. The parts of the key nervous organization that make up this matrix are the following:

• Spinal cord
• Brain stem and thalamus
• Various parts of the limbic organisation, such as the hypothalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, inductive cingulate cortex, among others
• Insular cortex
• Somatosensory cortex
• Motor cortex
• Prefrontal cortex

Each part contributes to diverse aspects of the experience of pain: the sensory, emotional, cerebral, motoric, behavioral, and conscious aspects. Research over the concluding 30 years has made significant strides in mapping these diverse aspects of pain onto corresponding areas of the encephalon, which work in combination. A total review of this research would be too lengthy to become into here, but a few brief examples would be the consistent findings associating the limbic and insular systems with both the emotional aspects of pain and its intensity,^{xiv, fifteen, 16, 17,} the prefrontal cortex with how one makes sense of pain,^{18, xix, 20} and the somatosensory cortex with where the pain is felt in the body.^{21, 22, 23}

The notion that a matrix of parts within the encephalon produces pain explains a number of facts well-nigh pain, which seem mysterious and inexplicable when holding to the Cartesian model of pain. Information technology has long been known that diverse factors influence the degree of pain that 1 has, over and above whatever extent of tissue damage there is. For case, the degree of attending to pain can influence the level of pain.^{24, 25, 26} Prior learning nearly pain, injuries and illness can influence current pain levels.^{27, 28} The social context in which hurting occurs tin can play a role in whether and how much ane has pain.^{29, 30} The emotional mood land at the time of pain can accept a similar role.^{31, 32} All of these long-known phenomena nearly hurting fail to make sense if nosotros solely equate pain with tissue harm, every bit in the example of the Cartesian model. However, if nosotros recognize the part of the brain in the product of hurting, and then all these psychosocial aspects of pain become explainable.

Implications: Changing paradigms of pain; treatment; placebo response

Changing paradigms of pain

The notion of the neuromatrix of pain and the wealth of empirical evidence that confirms it over the last thirty years is inevitably leading to a paradigm shift in how we empathize pain. Hurting isn't primarily the effect of an orthopedic status equally the Cartesian model has long had usa suppose, simply rather it is the result of a nervous system condition (or, more specifically, a neuro-endocrine-immune system condition^{33, 34}). Indeed, today, nosotros are witnessing this alter in paradigms. Increasingly, experts in pain accept come to take that chronic pain is a status of the cardinal nervous system, though we still shy abroad from calling it a encephalon disorder, perhaps, out of business concern for stigmatizing patients. This overall tendency, nevertheless, volition likely continue and one 24-hour interval it may non seem then strange to consider chronic pain a encephalon disorder or to seek interventions that alter the brain'due south neuromatrix when having either acute or chronic pain.

Indeed, even at nowadays, we ordinarily engage in helping behaviors that beneficially change the neuromatrix of those in acute hurting, fifty-fifty though we typically don't recognize it as such. Accept, for example, the mutual occurrence of a small kid who falls down, scrapes her articulatio genus, feels pain and afterward begins to cry; what adults typically practise in such situations is to reassure the child (e.1000., "You're okay"), place an adhesive bandage on the scrape, and redirect the child's attention to some course of play. Such "therapies" typically and readily ameliorate the pain entirely.

In these interactions, nosotros provide reassurance to the child that the impairment to her bodily integrity is not dangerous past reassuring her that she is okay. In so doing, we change her belief system about the tissue impairment. She had thought that the scrape was dangerous, but upon receiving our reassurance, she now understands that it is something beneficial. With our reassurance, we don't downplay or invalidate the pain, but rather have it seriously by attending to it with the adhesive bandage. In this way, we don't create the possibility in her belief organization that we may have missed something in our diagnosis and then perhaps her damage might be dangerous after all. Nosotros also don't create a ability struggle over who is right – her and her firsthand sense that her tissue impairment is dangerous or u.s.a. in our assurance that it isn't dangerous. In add-on, we use intentional distraction of attention abroad from the sense of damage that she has. In so doing, we occupy her attending with pleasant experiences, which further reinforce the sense that her harm is actually not unsafe. As a result of all these changes in her cognitive, attentional and emotional aspects of pain, her pain ceases. In other words, what nosotros have done in our response to her injury is to change the neuromatrix of her brain. (Come across, for instance, Goodman and McGrath³⁵).

Such changes to the neuromatrices of people are non limited to children. Whatever patient and clinician can adjure to the therapeutic ability of a reassurance visit to a healthcare provider. In acute injuries and illnesses of all kinds, a significant amount of therapeutic benefit can occur when nosotros receive a reassuring diagnosis, which we believe because nosotros've been taken seriously, and after have become confident that we can proceed with our life'south activities. Nosotros go from a state, on the one hand, of not knowing the significance and dangerousness of the tissue harm that has occurred and subsequently having get afraid and alarmed, to a state, on the other hand, of certainty in belief that nosotros are prophylactic and can redirect our energies and attention elsewhere. As a result of the upstream cognitive intervention, we come up to experience better downstream in our body.

Bones scientific discipline supports these everyday observations. While a full review of this literature would atomic number 82 us too far astray, fifty-fifty a cursory look points to how messages to or from the central nervous system regarding impairment to bodily integrity tin can elicit pain.³⁶or make existing pain worse.^{37, 38, 39}

From this light, we can ameliorate appreciate the current tendency in the field that encourages a change in the messaging to patients at the time of a consultation for an acute pain episode. The admonition to limited a message that 'hurt doesn't equal harm' is a cognitive intervention that changes the neuromatrix of an astute pain condition.

At present, certainly, all ailments don't necessarily follow this top-down alignment. Pancreatic cancer might exist an example that fails to follow a top-down progression. Nevertheless, decades of research betoken that symptoms mediated by the autonomic nervous arrangement, such every bit pain, nausea, depression and the like, practise.^{forty, 41}

Handling

For the last forty years or and so, the field of chronic pain management has had an established form of treatment that focuses its interventions at the level of the central nervous system in this top-down manner. Moreover, this handling has about 4 decades of outcome inquiry showing it to exist an effective, if non the most constructive, treatment for chronic pain.^{42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49}It's chosen the interdisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation programme (CPRP). Such programs are an interdisciplinary treatment for chronic hurting that involves health psychology, physical therapy, and medication management within a cerebral behavioral and exposure-based milieu. The predominant interventions are cognitive behavioral therapies, mild aerobic exercises both on country and in the pool, utilise of antiepileptics and antidepressants (either tricyclics or SNRI's), various forms of relaxation interventions (i.e., diaphragmatic breathing, progressive musculus relaxation, tai chi, mindfulness meditation, yoga), and exposure-based interventions of opioid tapering and maintaining a daily schedule of activities.

The notion of the neuromatrix of the brain explains why and how CPRPs are constructive.

The common denominator of all the therapies in a CPRP is that they target the central nervous system, reducing its sensitivity, simply also the cognitive, emotional and motoric aspects of pain, among others. They do so by changing how patients make sense of pain, irresolute their caste of emotional alarm well-nigh it, and by reassuringly showing them how to motion and engage in activities despite pain. In other words, CPRPs are a acme-down intervention: by changing the neuromatrix of the central nervous arrangement one can alter the peripheral nervous system and the hurting of the associated body parts.

CPRPs commonly fail to make sense to patients, third-party payers, and fifty-fifty some healthcare providers. Patients are often reluctant to pursue it until all therapies that target putative tissue damage have been exhausted. Some healthcare providers fail to refer patients to CPRPs considering they go on to recommend therapies targeting putative tissue impairment long after it is reasonable to conclude that these therapies aren't effective. Third-party payers have a long history of readily paying for care that focuses on the putative tissue damage associated with pain and refraining from paying for CPRPs. From the light of our give-and-take hither, we might see why: all these stakeholders tend to empathize hurting through the Cartesian model that equates hurting with tissue impairment and so readily seek out, recommend, and pay for bottoms-upward therapies, such equally interventional pain procedures and surgeries. Equally we've seen, a Cartesian model makes no room for agreement how and why a elevation-downward therapy, such as a cognitive behavioral based CPRP, is constructive.

Now that we have the neuromatrix model of pain model and most thirty years of basic pain science to ostend it, nosotros might brainstorm to ask, equally a field and every bit a gild, why practise we continue to care for so few people with constructive treatments that target the central nervous arrangement, such as with CPRPs, and instead care for so many people with less constructive treatments that target putative tissue impairment, which has niggling to no correlation with pain?

Placebo response

The neuromatrix model of pain puts what we know about the placebo response in a new lite. Perhaps the placebo response is neither mysterious nor to be derided, every bit information technology so often is by both clinicians and the public akin. What if, all along, the placebo response has been an unintentional cognitive behavioral intervention that changes the neuromatrix of the brain's responses and thereby reduces pain? In other words, the placebo response is the result of a circuitous set of sociocultural beliefs, expectations and conditioning behaviors, which influence the neuromatrix of the brain. As such, it would no longer seem so mysterious and we might no longer snicker when information technology occurs. From this low-cal, we should respect the placebo response, learn from it, and develop cerebral behavioral interventions that we use intentionally to modify the neuromatrix, rather than becoming perplexed when it inadvertently occurs.

The belief that one's bodily integrity, for instance, is not in danger or is no longer in danger could involve respective changes in the prefrontal cortex and limbic system, which so produce a cascade of psychophysiological responses, that lead to having no pain or a cessation of pain, respectively. Whatever number of mutual social and attentional contexts pb to the aforementioned beliefs and their resultant effects on pain levels: the absence of pain when tissue harm occurs can be brought well-nigh, for example, in the passionate excitement of the game for a football player who might otherwise think that he has injured himself; the cessation of an already occurring pain might exist due to a ritualized surgical procedure on a patient who has acquired a sociocultural belief organization almost the nature of his pain and the efficacy of the process (run into for example, studies past Kirkley, et al.,⁵⁰Bradley, et al.,⁵¹ Sihvonen, et al.,⁵²and Moseley, et al.,⁵³ which bear witness the equal effectiveness of various kinds of knee joint surgeries with placebo, or sham, surgeries). Respectively, in these cases, a belief system keeps hurting at bay or reduces information technology. These long observed phenomena show the power of irresolute the neuromatrix.

When this miracle occurs unintentionally, we tend at present to phone call it the placebo response. When it happens intentionally inside the context of cognitive behavioral therapy or a related CPRP, we call it pain reduction.

Perhaps, nosotros should just call it a change in the neuromatrix of the encephalon.

Conclusion

The notion of the neuromatrix of the brain is an explanatory model of how pain is produced and therapeutically reduced. Ronald Melzack, PhD, a psychologist, initially developed the model over a series of papers published at the end of the concluding century. Approximately xxx years of basic science has since confirmed the model and virtually pain experts at present largely consider it an accurate understanding of the nature of pain. The model involves two broad components: i) hurting is produced not by putative tissue harm and the peripheral nervous arrangement that surrounds it, merely rather by the cardinal nervous system, i.east., the brain and spinal cord; 2) various parts of the brain and spinal cord work in combination to produce the multiple aspects of the experience of pain. The significance of the neuromatrix model of pain is none other than to change our paradigmatic understanding of the nature of hurting. We are presently in the process of letting go of our Cartesian paradigm through which we have understood the nature of pain for the last 4 centuries. In its place, we are adopting an altogether new yet more helpful paradigm for understanding pain. In so doing, we can now sympathize how people can accept hurting whether they accept injury or not. Nosotros can as well now understand why therapies that target the central nervous organization, such as cognitive behavioral based CPRPs, take long been shown to exist effective. Moreover, nosotros tin now better understand why therapies that target putative tissue impairment go on failing over the years to be demonstrably effective.⁵⁴The model of the neuromatrix of the encephalon also puts the placebo effect in a new light, as the effect of an inadvertent change in the neuromatrix of the brain.

For more information, please encounter related topics: central sensitization; the relationship between degenerative disc affliction and hurting; the changing prototype in pain management; the mission of the Plant for Chronic Pain to educate the public about empirically-based conceptualizations of pain and its treatments.

References

ane. Melzack, R. & Loeser, J. D. (1978). Phantom torso parts in paraplegics: Evidence for a fundamental 'blueprint generating machinery' for pain.Pain, iv, 195-210.

2. Melzack, R. (1989). Phantom limbs, the self, and the brain (The D. O. Hebb Memorial Lecture).Canadian Psychologist, 30, ane-16.

3. Melzack, R. (1990). Phantom limbs and the concept of a neuromatrix.Trends in Neurosciences, thirteen(3), 88-92.

four. Melzack, R. (1999). From the gate to the neuromatrix.Pain, S6, S121-S126.

v. Melzack, R. & Wall, P. D. (1965). Pain mechanisms: A new theory.Scientific discipline, 150, 971-979.

6. DesCartes, R. (1633/2003).Treatise of Man. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.

7. Bogduk., N. (2012). Degenerative joint disease of the spine.Radiology Clinics of North America, 50(4), 613-628. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2012.04.012

8. Cheung, Chiliad. Yard., Karppinen, J., Chan, D., Ho, D. W., Song, Y., Sham, P., Cheah, K. S., Leong, J. C., & Luk, K. D. (2009). Prevalence and pattern of lumbar magnetic resonance imaging changes in a population study of thousand forty-three individuals.Spine, 34(ix), 934-940.

9. Guermazi, A., Niu, J., Hayashi, D., Roemer, F. W., Englund, M., Neogi, T., Aliabadi, P., McLennan, C. East., & Felson, D. T. (2012). Prevalence of abnormalities in knees detected by MRI based observational study (Framingham Osteoarthritis Study).BMJ, 345, e5339.

x. Register, B., Pennock, A. T., Ho, C. P., Strickland, C. D., Lawand, A., & Philoppon, M. J. (2012). Prevalence of aberrant hip findings in asymptomatic participants.American Journal of Sports Medicine, 40(12), 2720-2724.

11. Balague, F., Mannion, A. F., Pellise, F., & Cedraschi, C. (2012). Non-specific depression back hurting.Lancet, 379, 482-491.

12. Krismer, M. (2007). Depression back pain (non-specific).Best Practice & Enquiry: Clinical Rheumatology, 21(1), 77-91.

thirteen. Wittgenstein, L. (1953).Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.

xiv. Rouwette, T., Vanelderen, P., Roubos, E. W., Kozicz, T., & Vissers, 1000. (2012). The amygdala, a relay station for switching on and off pain.European Journal of Pain, 16(6), 782-792. doi: x.1002/j.1532-2149.2011.00071.x

15. Price, D. D. (2000). Psychological and neural mechanisms of the affective dimension of pain.Science, 288(5472), 1769-1772.

16. Segerdahl, A. R., Mezue, M., O'Kell, T. W., Farra, J. T. & Tracey, I. (2015). The dorsal posterior insula subserves a fundamental function in human pain.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18, 499-500. doi: 10.1038/nn.3969

17. Uddin, L. Q. (2015). Salience processing and insular cortical function and dysfunction.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(ane), 55-61. doi: 10.1038/nrn3857

18. Simons, L. E., Elman, I., & Borsook, D. (2014). Psychological processing in chronic hurting: A neural systems arroyo.Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 39, 61-78. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.12.006

19. Apkerian, A. V., Bushnell, Thou. C., Treede, R. D., & Zubleta, J. K. (2005). Human brain mechanisms of pain perception and regulation in health and disease.European Journal of Pain. nine(four), 463-484.

20. Atlas, 50. Y. & Wager, T. D. (2012). How expectations shape pain.Neuroscience Messages, 520(two), 140-148. Doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.03.039

21. Flor, H. (2012). New developments in the understanding and management of persistent pain.Current Stance in Psychiatry, 25(2), 109-113. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e3283503510

22. Haggard, P., Iannetti, Thou. D., & Longo, Grand. R. (2013). Spatial sensory system and body representation in hurting perception.Current Biological science, 23, R164-R176. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.047

23. Bushnell. M. C., Duncan, Chiliad. H., Hofbauer, R. K., Ha, B., Chen, J.-I., Carrier, B. (1999). Pain perception: Is there a office for primary somatosensory cortex? Proceedings of the National University of Sciences, 96(14), 7705-7709.

24. Pincus, T. & Morley, South. (2001). Cognitive-processing bias in chronic pain: A review and integration.Psychological Bulletin: 127(5), 599-617.

25. Bantick, South. J., Wise, R. Thousand., Ploghaus, A., Clare, S., Smith, S. Thou., & Tracey, I. (2002). Imaging how attention modulates hurting in humans using functional MRI.Brain, 125(2), 310-319. doi: 10.1093/brain/awf022

26. Van Damme, S., Legrain, V., Vogt, J., & Crombez, G. (2010). Keeping pain in mind: A motivational business relationship of attending to pain.Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 204-213. doi: x.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.01.005

27. Wiech, K., Vandekerckhove, J., Zaman, J., Tuerlinckx, F., Vlaeyan, J. W., & Tracey, I. (2014). Influence of prior information on pain involves biased perceptual decision-making.Current Biological science, 24(15), R679-R681. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.022

28. Goubert, L., Vlaeyan, J. W., Crombez, Thou., & Craig, K. D. (2011). Learning most pain from others: An observational learning account.Journal of Pain, 12(2), 167-174. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.10.001

29. Eisenberger, Northward. I., Master, S. Fifty., Inagaki, T. K., Taylor, Due south. E., & Shirinyan, D. (2011). Attachment figures activate a safety signal-related neural region and reduce pain experience.Proceedings of the National University of Science, 108(28), 11721-11726. doi: x.1073/pnas.1108239108

thirty. Montoya, P., Larbig, W., Braun, C., Preissl, H., & Birbaumer, Due north. (2004). Influence of social support and emotional context on pain processing and magnetic encephalon responses in fibromyalgia.Arthritis & Rheumatism, fifty(12), 4035-4044. doi: 10.1002/art.20660

31. Wiech, One thousand. & Tracey, I. (2009). The influence of negative emotions on hurting: Behavioral furnishings and neural mechanisms.NeuroImage, 47, 987-994. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.059

32. Villemure, C. & Bushnell, G. C. (2009). Mood influences supraspinal pain processing separately from attending. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(three), 705-715. doi: ten.1523/jneurosci.3822-o8.2009

33. Melzack, R. (1999). Hurting and stress: A new perspective. In Gatchel, R. J. and Turk, D. C. (Eds.),Psychosocial factors in hurting (pp. 89-106). New York: Guilford Printing.

34. Chapman, C. R., Tuckett, R. P., & Vocal, C. W. (2008). Pain and stress in a systems perspective: Reciprocal neural, endocrine and immune interactions.Periodical of Pain, 9(2), 122-145. doi: ten.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.006

35. Goodman, J. Eastward. & McGrath, P. J. (2003). Mother'southward modeling influences children'south hurting during a cold pressor task.Hurting, 104(3), 559-565.

36. Harvie, D. S., Broecker, M., Smith, R. T., Meulders, A., Madden, 5. J., & Moseley, Thou. Fifty. (2015). Bogus visual feedback alters onset of movement-evoked pain in people with cervix pain.Psychological Scientific discipline, 26(4), 385-392. doi: 10.1177/0956797614563339

37. Moseley, G. L. & Arntz, A. (2007). The context of a noxious stimulus affects the hurting it invokes.Pain, 133(one-iii), 64-71.

38. Arntz, A. & Claassens, 50. (2004). The meaning of hurting influences its experienced intensity.Pain, 109(1-2), 20-25.

39. Moseley, G. L., Zalucki, N., Birklein, F., Marinus, J., van Hilten, J. J., & Luomajoki, H. (2008). Thinking near move hurts: The effect on motor imagery on hurting and swelling in people with chronic arm pain.Arthritis Care & Inquiry, 59(five), 623-631. doi: 10.1002/art.23580

twoscore. Papakostas, Y. Chiliad. & Daras, M. D. (2001). Placebos, placebo result, and the response to the healing state of affairs: The evolution of a concept.Epilepsia, 42, 1614-1625.

41. Wampold, B. Eastward., Minami, T., Tierney, South. C., Baskin, T. W., & Bhati, K. S. (2005). The placebo is powerful: Estimating placebo furnishings in medicine and psychotherapy from randomized clinical trials.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(7), 835-854. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20129

42. Flor, H., Fydrich, T. & Turk, D. C. (1992). Efficacy of multidisciplinary hurting treatment centers: A meta-analytic review.Pain, 49, 221-230.

43. Turk, D. C. (2002). Clinical effectiveness and toll-effectiveness of treatments for patients with chronic hurting.The Clinical Journal of Hurting, 18,355-365.

44. Gatchel, R., J., & Okifuji, A. (2006). Prove-based scientific data documenting the handling and price-effectiveness of comprehensive pain programs for chronic not-cancerous pain.Periodical of Hurting, seven, 779-793.

45. Busch, H., Bodin, L., Bergstrom, G., & Jensen, I. B. (2011). Patterns of sickness absence a decade after hurting-related multidisciplinary rehabilitation.Hurting, 152, 1727-1733.

46. Patrick, L. E., Altmaier, E. M., & Constitute, Due east. One thousand. (2004). Long-term outcomes in multidisciplinary handling of chronic depression back hurting: Results of a thirteen-yr follow-upward.Spine, 29(viii), 850-855.

47. Hauser, W., Bernardy, K., Arnold, B., Offenbacher, Grand., & Schiltenwolf, Thousand. (2009). Efficacy of multicomponent treatment in fibromyalgia syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Arthritis & Rheumatology, 61(2), 216-224. doi: 10.1002/fine art.24276

48. Guzman, J., Esmail, R., Karjalainen, Thou., Malmivaara, A., Irvin, E., & Bombardier, C. (2005). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low dorsum pain: Systematic review.BMJ, 322(7301), 1511-1516.

49. Gatchel, R. J., McGeary, D. D., McGeary, C. A., & Lippe, B. (2014). Interdisciplinary chronic pain direction: Past, nowadays, and future.Amercian Psychologist, 69(two), 119-130. doi: 10.1037/a0035514

50. Kirkley, A., Birmingham, T. B., Litchfield, R. B., Griffin, J. R., Willits, K. R... Fowler, P. J. (2008). A randomized trial of arthroscopic knee surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee.New England Journal of Medicine, 359(11), 1097-1107. doi: x.1056/NEJMoa0708333

51. Bradley, J. D., Heilman, D. K., Katz, B. P., One thousand'Sell, P., Wallick, J. E., & Brandt, G. D. (2002). Tidal irrigation as treatment for knee joint osteoarthritis: A sham-controlled, randomized, double-blinded evaluation.Arthritis & Rheumatism, 46(1), 100-108.

52. Sihvonen, R., Paavola, M., Malmivaara, A., Itala, A., Joukainen, A., Nurmi, H., Kalske, J., & Jarvinen, T. L. (2013). Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy vs. sham surgery for a degeneratiev meniscal tear.New England Journal of Medicine, 369(26), 2515-2524. doi: x.1056/NEJMoa1305189

53. Moseley, J. B., O'Malley K., Petersen, N. J., Menke, T. J., Brody, B. A., Kuykendall, D. H., Hollingsworth, J. C., Ashton, C. Thou., & Wray, N. P. (2002). A controlled trial of arthroscopic human knee surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee.New England Journal of Medicine, 347(2), 81-88. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa013259

54. Deyo, R. A., Mirza, S. Thousand., Turner, J. A., & Martin, B. I. (2009). Overtreating back pain: Time to back off?Periodical of the American Board of Family Medicine, 22(1), 62-68. doi: x.3122/jabfm.2009.01.080102

Appointment of publication: May 23, 2015

Date of last modification: May 12, 2017

smithblied1970.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.instituteforchronicpain.org/understanding-chronic-pain/what-is-chronic-pain/neuromatrix-of-pain

Share this post