↓ Skip to main content

Cortical Sensorimotor Processing of Painful Pressure in Patients with Chronic Lower Back Pain—An Optical Neuroimaging Study using fNIRS

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Cortical Sensorimotor Processing of Painful Pressure in Patients with Chronic Lower Back Pain—An Optical Neuroimaging Study using fNIRS
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00578
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Vrana, Michael L. Meier, Sabina Hotz-Boendermaker, Barry K. Humphreys, Felix Scholkmann

Abstract

In this study we investigated sensorimotor processing of painful pressure stimulation on the lower back of patients with chronic lower back pain (CLBP) by using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to measure changes in cerebral hemodynamics and oxygenation. The main objectives were whether patients with CLBP show different relative changes in oxy- and deoxyhemoglobin ([O2Hb] and [HHb]) in the supplementary motor area (SMA) and primary somatosensory cortex (S1) compared to healthy controls (HC). Twelve patients with CLBP (32 ± 6.1 years; range: 24-44 years; nine women) and 20 HCs (33.5 ± 10.7 years; range 22-61 years; eight women) participated in the study. Painful and non-painful pressure stimulation was exerted with a thumb grip perpendicularly to the spinous process of the lumbar spine. A force sensor was attached at the spinous process in order to control pressure forces. Tactile stimulation was realized by a one-finger brushing. Hemodynamic changes in the SMA and S1 were measured bilaterally using a multi-channel continuous wave fNIRS imaging system and a multi-distant probe array. Patients with CLBP showed significant stimulus-evoked hemodynamic responses in [O2Hb] only in the right S1, while the HC exhibited significant [O2Hb] changes bilaterally in both, SMA and S1. However, the group comparisons revealed no significant different hemodynamic responses in [O2Hb] and [HHb] in the SMA and S1 after both pressure stimulations. This non-significant result might be driven by the high inter-subject variability of hemodynamic responses that has been observed within the patients group. In conclusion, we could not find different stimulus-evoked hemodynamic responses in patients with CLBP compared to HCs. This indicates that neither S1 nor the SMA show a specificity for CLBP during pressure stimulation on the lower back. However, the results point to a potential subgrouping regarding task-related cortical activity within the CLBP group; a finding worth further research.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 17%
Student > Master 15 17%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 25 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 16%
Engineering 12 13%
Neuroscience 9 10%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 27 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#6,020,850
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,433
of 7,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,810
of 417,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#60
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 417,510 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 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 64% of its contemporaries.