Article

Hand dominancy--a feature affecting sensitivity to pain.

Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel.
Neuroscience Letters (Impact Factor: 2.06). 10/2009; 467(3):237-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.10.048
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Hand dominancy (i.e. handedness) is a factor that should be considered for further characterizing individual variations in sensitivity to pain. The aim of the present study was to examine the contribution of handedness and gender to sensitivity to tonic cold pain in healthy subjects. Participants were 109 healthy volunteers (52 males and 57 females), of whom 65 were right-handed and 44 left-handed. Subjects were exposed to the cold pressor test (1 degrees C) for both hands while measuring the cold pain threshold, intensity, and tolerance. No significant differences were found in pain threshold or intensity between the right versus the left hands among either the right-handed or the left-handed subjects. However, among the right-handed subjects only, cold pain tolerance was significantly longer in the right hand than in the left hand (32.9+/-5.1s vs. 27.0+/-4.2s, respectively; p=0.018). Significant differences were found between males and females in pain threshold, but not in pain intensity or tolerance, either when their right or left hand was tested (p=0.027 and p=0.009, respectively). Analyzing pain perception by handedness and gender revealed that the right-handed males were less sensitive to pain in their right versus their left hand, as determined by lower pain intensity (p=0.031) and longer tolerance (p=0.047). No significant differences were found among the left-handed males or among the females. The results provide further evidence that handedness is one vital feature that should be considered more often when designing a psychophysical study. This may lead towards improving the translation of laboratory research findings to the clinical setting.

12 Followers
 · 
8,050 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to measure the immediate differences in craniocervical posture and pressure pain threshold of the greater occipital (GO) nerve in asymptomatic subjects with a history of having used orthodontics, after intervention by a suboccipital muscle inhibition (SMI) technique. This was a randomized, single-blind, clinical study with a sample of 24 subjects (21 ± 1.78 years) that were divided into an experimental group (n = 12) who underwent the SMI technique and a sham group (n = 12) who underwent a sham (placebo) intervention. The sitting and standing craniovertebral angle and the pressure pain threshold of the GO nerve in both hemispheres were measured. The between-group comparison of the sample indicated that individuals subjected to the SMI technique showed a statistically significant increase in the craniovertebral angle in both the sitting (P < .001, F(1,22) = 102.09, R(2) = 0.82) and the standing (P < .001, F(1,22) = 21.42, R(2) = 0.56) positions and in the GO nerve pressure pain threshold in the nondominant hemisphere (P = .014, F(1,22) = 7.06, R(2) = 0.24). There were no statistically significant differences observed for the GO nerve mechanosensitivity in the dominant side (P = .202). Suboccipital muscle inhibition technique immediately improved the position of the head with the subject seated and standing, the clinical effect size being large in the former case. It also immediately decreased the mechanosensitivity of the GO nerve in the nondominant hemisphere, although the effect size was small.
    Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics 08/2012; 35(6):446-53. DOI:10.1016/j.jmpt.2012.06.006 · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although painfulness of the conditioning stimulus (CS) is required for the activation of conditioned pain modulation (CPM), it is still unclear whether CPM expression depends on the objective physical intensity of the CS or the subjective perception of its pain. Accordingly, we cognitively manipulated the perceived CS pain, rendering the physical aspects of the CPM paradigm untouched. Baseline CPM was measured among 48 young healthy male subjects using the parallel paradigm with contact heat as test pain and hand immersion in hot water as CS. Subjects were then randomized into 4 groups, all of which were cognitively manipulated as to the CS-induced pain: group 1, placebo (CS less painful); group 2, nocebo (CS more painful); and groups 3 and 4, the informed control groups for groups 1 and 2, respectively. CPM was reassessed after the manipulation. Comparing the groups by MANCOVA (multivariate analysis of covariance) revealed that placebo exerted decreased CS pain and consequent attenuation of CPM magnitudes, while nocebo elicited increased CS pain, but without CPM elevation (P<.0001). Within the placebo group, the reduction in CS pain was associated with diminished CPM responses (r=0.767; P=.001); however, no such relationship characterized the nocebo group. Pain inhibition under CPM seems to depend on the perceived level of the CS pain rather than solely its physical intensity. Cognitively decreasing the perceived CS pain attenuates CPM magnitude, although a ceiling effect may limit CPM enhancement after cognitively increased CS pain. These findings emphasize the relevance of cognitive mechanisms in determining endogenous analgesia processes in humans.
    Pain 11/2011; 153(1):170-6. DOI:10.1016/j.pain.2011.10.010 · 5.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and melatonin can effectively treat pain. Given their potentially complementary mechanisms of action, their combination could have a synergistic effect. Thus, we tested the hypothesis that compared to the control condition and melatonin alone, tDCS combined with melatonin would have a greater effect on pain modulatory effect, as assessed by quantitative sensory testing (QST) and by the pain level during the Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM)-task. Furthermore, the combined treatment would have a greater cortical excitability effect as indicated by the transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and on the serum BDNF level. Healthy males (n = 20), (aged 18-40 years), in a blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover, clinical trial, were randomized into three groups: sublingual melatonin (0.25 mg/kg) + a-tDCS, melatonin (0.25 mg/kg) + sham-(s)-tDCS, or sublingual placebo+sham-(s)-tDCS. Anodal stimulation (2 mA, 20 min) was applied over the primary motor cortex. There was a significant difference in the heat pain threshold (°C) for melatonin+a-tDCS vs. placebo+s-tDCS (mean difference: 4.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9 to 8.63) and melatonin+s-tDCS vs. placebo+s-tDCS (mean: 5.16, 95% CI: 0.84 to 8.36). There was no difference between melatonin+s-tDCS and melatonin+a-tDCS (mean difference: 0.29, 95% CI: -3.72 to 4.23). The mean change from the baseline on amplitude of motor evocate potential (MEP) was significantly higher in the melatonin+a-tDCS (-19.96% ± 5.2) compared with melatonin+s-tDCS group (-1.36% ± 5.35) and with placebo+s-tDCS group (3.61% ± 10.48), respectively (p < 0.05 for both comparisons). While melatonin alone or combined with a-tDCS did not significantly affect CPM task result, and serum BDNF level. The melatonin effectively reduced pain; however, its association with a-tDCS did not present an additional modulatory effect on acute induced pain.
    Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 03/2015; 9:77. DOI:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00077 · 4.16 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
250 Downloads
Available from