Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04664400

N-of-few Study of Pain Perception

A behavioral study that will examine how pain perception is affected by different types of conditioning and by context, with a few participants and multiple sessions ("N-of-few" design).

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Age range

18 year–55 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Dartmouth College

Hanover, New Hampshire, 03755, United States

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Healthy participants

Exclusion criteria

  • Cannot tolerate heat pain applied to the forearm/leg, based on a calibration task at the beginning of the experiment

Treatment and study plan

Symbolic conditioning

Behavioral

Participants will learn associations between cues and thermal stimuli with varying temperatures (low vs. high) through symbolic conditioning (no actual heat stimuli, only pictures of thermometers)

Conditioning

Behavioral

Participants will learn associations between cues and thermal stimuli with varying temperatures (low vs. high) from experience (with actual heat stimuli).

Instructions

Behavioral

Participants will learn associations between cues and thermal stimuli with varying temperatures (low vs. high) from verbal instructions.

Counterfactual

Behavioral

Thermal stimuli will be either the better outcome or the worse outcome out of two possible outcomes.

Primary outcomes

  1. Within Participant Subjective Ratings of Acute Thermal Pain Following High Compared to Low Cues (Learned Via Symbolic Learning)

    Time frame: Measured repeatedly during pain tasks, in each of the 10 sessions of the experiment (up to 3 sessions per week, depending on the participants' availability), immediately after thermal stimuli. Averaged across sessions and compared across conditions.

    Each session of the experiment includes pain tasks, in which multiple thermal stimuli are delivered. Following each thermal stimulus, participants are asked to rate how painful it was, on a semi-circular computerized scale. Ratings are based on the angle (0-180), with higher angle representing higher pain ratings. In the symbolic learning procedure, cues are conditioned to different temperatures based on pictures of thermometers (instead of actual thermal stimuli as in the conditioning procedure). For the cues that were learned via symbolic learning, the investigators will compare the average rating of pain for stimuli that are preceded by high cues minus the average rating of pain for stimuli that are preceded by low cues (each averaged across sessions), within participant.

  2. Within Participant Subjective Ratings of Acute Thermal Pain Following High Compared to Low Cues (Learned Via Conditioning)

    Time frame: Measured repeatedly during pain tasks, in each of the 10 sessions of the experiment (up to 3 sessions per week, depending on the participants' availability), immediately after thermal stimuli. Averaged across sessions and compared across conditions.

    Each session of the experiment includes pain tasks, in which multiple thermal stimuli are delivered. Following each thermal stimulus, participants are asked to rate how painful it was, on a semi-circular computerized scale. Ratings are based on the angle (0-180), with higher angle representing higher pain ratings. In the conditioning procedure, cues are conditioned to different temperatures by delivering thermal stimuli with different temperatures after cues are presented (higher temperature following high cues and lower temperature following low cues). For the cues that were learned via conditioning, the investigators will compare the average rating of pain for stimuli that are preceded by high cues minus the average rating of pain for stimuli that are preceded by low cues (each averaged across sessions), within participant.

  3. Within Participant Subjective Ratings of Acute Thermal Pain Following High Compared to Low Cues (Learned Via Instructions Only)

    Time frame: Measured repeatedly during pain tasks, in each of the 10 sessions of the experiment (up to 3 sessions per week, depending on the participants' availability), immediately after thermal stimuli. Averaged across sessions and compared across conditions.

    Each session of the experiment includes pain tasks, in which multiple thermal stimuli are delivered. Following each thermal stimulus, participants are asked to rate how painful it was, on a semi-circular computerized scale. Ratings are based on the angle (0-180), with higher angle representing higher pain ratings. In the instructions only condition, cues are learned via verbal suggestion. For the cues that were learned via instructions only, the investigators will compare the average rating of pain for stimuli that are preceded by high cues minus the average rating of pain for stimuli that are preceded by low cues (each averaged across sessions), within participant.

  4. Within Participant Subjective Ratings of Acute Thermal Pain, When it is the Worse vs. the Better Alternative

    Time frame: Measured repeatedly during pain tasks, in each of the last 4 sessions of the experiment, immediately after thermal stimuli. Averaged across sessions and compared across conditions.

    In the counterfactual task, participants are presented with two alternatives (either two pain levels, or one pain level and either losing or gaining a certain amount of money). In these pairs of alternatives, the medium level pain is sometimes the better option (i.e., when the alternative is losing money or a more intense pain stimulus) and sometimes the worse option (i.e., when the other alternative is gaining money or a less intense pain stimulus). One of the two options is chosen by the computer (participants have no control on this choice). The investigators will compare the pain ratings (scale 0-180) within participant for the same level pain stimulus (medium intensity) when it is the worse vs. the better option.

Other outcomes

  1. Within Participant Facial Expressions

    Time frame: Measured continuously during pain stimuli in each of the 10 sessions of the experiment (up to 3 sessions per week, depending on the participants' availability). Averaged and compared across conditions.

    The investigators will obtain continuous facial video recordings of participants during the pain tasks with a video camera. The investigators will analyze these data according to Facial Action Units (facial expressions) that are known to be related to pain, and compare them across conditions.

  2. Within Participant Thermal Imaging of the Face

    Time frame: Measured continuously during pain stimuli in each of the 10 sessions of the experiment (up to 3 sessions per week, depending on the participants' availability). Averaged and compared across conditions.

    The investigators will obtain thermal recordings of participant's face with an infrared camera, and compare the heat signature of the face (the temperature in different parts of the face) across conditions.

  3. Within Participant Changes in Skin Conductance Response Measured With a Biopac MP160 Device

    Time frame: Measured continuously during pain stimuli in each of the 10 sessions of the experiment (up to 3 sessions per week, depending on the participants' availability). Averaged and compared across conditions.

    Each session of the experiment includes pain tasks, in which multiple thermal stimuli are delivered. Skin conductance will be measured continuously. The investigators will compare the skin conductance response to pain stimuli within participant across conditions.

  4. Within Participant Changes in Subjective Ratings of Pain Expectations

    Time frame: Measured repeatedly during pain tasks, in each of the 10 sessions of the experiment (up to 3 sessions per week, depending on the participants' availability), immediately before thermal stimuli. Averaged and compared across conditions.

    Each session of the experiment includes pain tasks, in which multiple thermal stimuli are delivered. Before some of the thermal stimuli, participants are asked to rate how painful they expect the next stimulus to be, on a semi-circular computerized scale. Ratings are based on the angle (0-180), with higher angle representing higher expectations ratings. The investigators will compare the expectation ratings within participant across conditions.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Trustees of Dartmouth College

Other

Collaborators

  • National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

Registry information

Official study title

Common and Distinct Mechanisms of Expectancy Effects Across Outcomes

Acronym: NOF

Important dates

Study start
2021
Primary completion
2021
Study completion
2021
First posted
Dec 11, 2020
Registry last updated
Apr 18, 2023

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.