{"doi":"10.1111/ejn.13258","title":"Inhibitory effects of heterotopic noxious counter‐stimulation on perception and brain activity related to Aβ‐fibre activation","abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Heterotopic noxious counter‐stimulation (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content>) inhibits pain and pain processes through cerebral and cerebrospinal mechanisms. However, it is unclear whether <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content> inhibits non‐nociceptive processes, which needs to be clarified for a better understanding of <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content> analgesia. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content> on perception and scalp somatosensory evoked potentials (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">SEP</jats:styled-content>s). Seventeen healthy volunteers participated in two counter‐balanced sessions, including non‐nociceptive (selective Aβ‐fibre activation) or nociceptive electrical stimulation, combined with <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content>. <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content> was produced by a 20‐min cold pressor test (left hand) adjusted individually to produce moderate pain (mean ± <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">SEM</jats:styled-content>: 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 <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">RIII</jats:styled-content>‐reflex threshold and produced moderate pain (45.3 ± 4.5). Shock sensation was significantly decreased by <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content> compared with baseline for non‐nociceptive (<jats:italic>P </jats:italic>&lt;<jats:italic> </jats:italic>0.001) and nociceptive (<jats:italic>P </jats:italic>&lt;<jats:italic> </jats:italic>0.001) stimulation. <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">SEP</jats:styled-content> peak‐to‐peak amplitude at Cz was significantly decreased by <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content> for non‐nociceptive (<jats:italic>P </jats:italic>&lt;<jats:italic> </jats:italic>0.01) and nociceptive (<jats:italic>P </jats:italic>&lt;<jats:italic> </jats:italic>0.05) stimulation. These results indicate that perception and brain activity related to Aβ‐fibre activation are inhibited by <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content>. 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.</jats:p>","journal":"European Journal of Neuroscience","year":2016,"id":670395,"datarank":0.4943755299006494,"base_score":3.295836866004329,"endowment":3.295836866004329,"self_citation_contribution":0.4943755299006494,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.4943755299006494,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":26,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":null,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":false,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":null,"fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":1751108,"name":"Jessica Tessier","orcid":null,"position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":809382,"name":"Benjamin Provencher","orcid":"0000-0001-6953-3495","position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1364871,"name":"Alexandre Lehmann","orcid":"0000-0002-6703-872X","position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1242176,"name":"Mathieu Piché","orcid":"0000-0003-4171-2226","position":4,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":884660,"name":"Nabi Rustamov","orcid":"0009-0001-9694-9207","position":0,"is_corresponding":false}],"reference_count":0,"raw_metadata":{"has_enrichment":true,"resolved":true,"title":"Inhibitory effects of heterotopic noxious counter‐stimulation on perception and brain activity related to Aβ‐fibre activation","abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Heterotopic noxious counter‐stimulation (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content>) inhibits pain and pain processes through cerebral and cerebrospinal mechanisms. However, it is unclear whether <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content> inhibits non‐nociceptive processes, which needs to be clarified for a better understanding of <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content> analgesia. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content> on perception and scalp somatosensory evoked potentials (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">SEP</jats:styled-content>s). Seventeen healthy volunteers participated in two counter‐balanced sessions, including non‐nociceptive (selective Aβ‐fibre activation) or nociceptive electrical stimulation, combined with <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content>. <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content> was produced by a 20‐min cold pressor test (left hand) adjusted individually to produce moderate pain (mean ± <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">SEM</jats:styled-content>: 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 <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">RIII</jats:styled-content>‐reflex threshold and produced moderate pain (45.3 ± 4.5). Shock sensation was significantly decreased by <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content> compared with baseline for non‐nociceptive (<jats:italic>P </jats:italic>&lt;<jats:italic> </jats:italic>0.001) and nociceptive (<jats:italic>P </jats:italic>&lt;<jats:italic> </jats:italic>0.001) stimulation. <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">SEP</jats:styled-content> peak‐to‐peak amplitude at Cz was significantly decreased by <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content> for non‐nociceptive (<jats:italic>P </jats:italic>&lt;<jats:italic> </jats:italic>0.01) and nociceptive (<jats:italic>P </jats:italic>&lt;<jats:italic> </jats:italic>0.05) stimulation. These results indicate that perception and brain activity related to Aβ‐fibre activation are inhibited by <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">HNCS</jats:styled-content>. 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.</jats:p>","is_dataset_classified":null,"base_score":3.295836866004329,"endowment":3.295836866004329,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"views":0,"has_version_chain":false,"is_dataset":false,"is_oa":false,"pmid":"27086672","pmcid":null,"openalex_id":"https://openalex.org/W2339426170","authors":[],"funders":[{"funder_name":"Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé","grant_id":"","title":null}],"total_grants":1,"fwci":1.7519,"citation_percentile":0.84161414,"influential_citations":0,"citation_trend":[{"year":2016,"count":1},{"year":2017,"count":2},{"year":2018,"count":2},{"year":2019,"count":4},{"year":2020,"count":4},{"year":2021,"count":8},{"year":2022,"count":2},{"year":2023,"count":1},{"year":2024,"count":1},{"year":2026,"count":1}],"oa_status":"closed","license":"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor","oa_locations":[{"url":"https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fejn.13258","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ejn.13258","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13258","host_type":"journal"},{"url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27086672","host_type":"repository"}],"fields_of_study":["Pain Mechanisms and Treatments","Pain Management and Placebo Effect","Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation","Adult","Brain","Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control","Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory","Female","Humans","Male","Nerve Fibers","Nociceptive Pain","Pain Perception"],"mesh_terms":["Adult","Brain","Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory","Female","Humans","Male","Nerve Fibers","Pain Perception","Nociceptive Pain","Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control"],"keywords":["Nociception","Stimulation","Diffuse noxious inhibitory control","Noxious stimulus","Sensation","Anesthesia","Inhibitory postsynaptic potential","Psychology","Chemistry","Somatosensory system","Nociceptor","Neuroscience","Medicine","Internal medicine","Human","Pain","Brain activity","CPM","Tactile","Dnic"],"sdg_mappings":[{"sdg_number":0,"sdg_label":"Good health and well-being"}],"linked_datasets":[],"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"database_accessions":[],"source":"live","citation_network_status":"fetched"},"created_at":"2026-08-15T21:52:08.074860Z","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}