Skip to main content
[Preprint]. 2023 Mar 18:2023.03.18.23287266. [Version 1] doi: 10.1101/2023.03.18.23287266

Figure 3: Relationship between HFA and the psychophysical evaluation of pain.

Figure 3:

2A: The mean "yes" and "no" z-scored mean HFA for Patient 3 during the last second of the trial within the cingulate gyrus. The predictive time window from the heatmap in 2B is shaded in grey. It should be noted that visualizing the z-scored mean HFA across time does not account for interaction variables, such as temperature and patient identification even though the predictive regions did account for these variables through GLME modeling.

2B: Heatmap coloring represents the real t-statistics for the HFA in each patient’s cingulate gyrus. Each row in the heatmap represents one of the four patients. Each column represents one of the overlapping 500 ms windows that were analyzed. If the real t-statistic was significant (see Statistical Analysis), we outlined the region with a black box. The dotted vertical lines represent the end of the trial. Patient 3’s HFA predicted an increase in “no” responses from 0:500 ms after the stimulus ended (P=0.0360).

2C: Similar to 2B, except the response variable is the VAS score. Patient 2 had HFA predictive of an increase in VAS ratings from −250 ms to 250 ms relative to the end of the trial (P=0.0260)