Skip to main content
. 2022 May 2;20(5):e3001620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001620

Fig 1. Study design.

Fig 1

(A) Each experimental design involved a succession of thermal boxcar stimuli delivered at variable but finite intervals over a succession of fMRI sessions. A psychological manipulation designed to affect pain intensity preceded the stimulus in many designs, for example, a pain-predictive cue designed to heighten or reduce pain experience. Thermal stimuli varied in intensity and were mostly delivered to the left ventral forearm as illustrated. Cues varied across studies and were uncorrelated with stimulus intensity. After each stimulus, participants rated their pain intensity using a visual scale. For details on each design, refer to Table 2. (B) Pain ratings reflect a variety of influences on pain experience. Wedges show the proportion of variance explained by each factor for each study individually and across all studies (excluding validation studies, balancing participants across studies). Since fMRI data were quartiled for computational tractability, and z-scored for between study normalization, these data were also quartiled and (in the aggregated data) z-scored prior to regression analyses. The sum of wedges equals model variance explained. Residual model error is not shown, but completes the circles. We do not consider between-participant differences further in this study, but we display them here to better characterize nonexperimental sources of pain variability. See S1 Table for standardized regression coefficients. Underlying data: https://github.com/canlab/petre_scope_of_pain_representation/tree/main/figure1. Illustrated arm adapted from Da Vinci’s Vitruvian man [101]. fMRI, functional magnetic resonance imaging.