↓ Skip to main content

Low threshold unmyelinated mechanoafferents can modulate pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Low threshold unmyelinated mechanoafferents can modulate pain
Published in
BMC Neurology, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12883-017-0963-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathrin Habig, Anne Schänzer, Wolfgang Schirner, Gothje Lautenschläger, Benjamin Dassinger, Håkan Olausson, Frank Birklein, Elke R. Gizewski, Heidrun H. Krämer

Abstract

Human, hairy skin contains a subgroup of C-fibers, the C-low threshold mechanoreceptive afferents ((C-LTMR) C-tactile or C-touch (CT) fibers) that are linked with the signaling of affective aspects of human touch. Recent studies suggest an involvement of these afferents in the modulation of pain in healthy volunteers. Small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is associated with a damage of C-fibers. Therefore, an impairment of C-LTMRs can be assumed. We aimed to elaborate a possible role of CT-afferents in pain modulation by investigating healthy volunteers and SFN-patients. Experiment I: 20 SFN-patients (12 women, median age 52.0 years) and 20 healthy controls (14 women, median age 43.0 years) participated in this prospective fMRI and psychophysical study. Heat-pain (HP), CT-targeted touch (slow brushing) and HP combined with CT-targeted touch were applied in randomized order to the left shank in a block design. The participants rated pain intensity on a visual analogue scale. Experiment II: We investigated a possible impact of pain intensity on CT induced pain modulation (10 healthy participants). The intensity of HP stimulation was chosen to induce pain intensity 50/100 (NRS). HP stimulation was applied with and without CT-targeted touch. Experiment I: CT-stimulation was sufficient to reduce heat pain in healthy participants (p = 0.016), but not in SFN-patients. HP induced pain intensity was significantly higher (32,2 vs 52,6) in SFN-patients. During HP, bold responses in pain associated areas were observed in both groups. Additional CT-stimulation elicited no significant difference of bold responses compared to HP. Experiment II: In healthy volunteers, we reproduced a significant reduction of HP intensity by CT-stimulation (p = 0.038). CT input seems to be sufficient to modulate pain, independent of intensity of the pain stimulus. As a prerequisite, the CT fibers have to be intact as in healthy volunteers. If CT fibers are impaired - as in SFN -, CT-targeted touch does not modulate pain intensity. The location of CT-induced pain modulation might be attributed to the level of the dorsal horn since the cortical activation pattern of heat pain with and without CT-targeted touch did not differ in healthy subjects and in SFN-patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 16 14%
Psychology 14 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 40 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,956,098
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,375
of 2,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,467
of 316,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#10
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,191 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.