Table 2. Effects of heat, cues, and learning on responses in value-related regions of interest and pain-related signature patterns*.
| Analysis | Effect | Left striatum | Right striatum | Left amygdala | Right amygdala | VMPFC | NPS | SIIPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of heat intensity | All participants, controlling for Group | b=0.19, p<0.001 | b=0.14, p<0.001 | - | - | b=–0.27, p<0.001 | b=3.74, p<0.001 | b=439.87, p<0.001 |
| Instructed vs Uninstructed | - | - | - | - | b=0.15, p=0.048 | - | - | |
| Instructed Group | CI = [0.08 0.22], t(17) = 3.05, p=0.007 |
CI = [0.14 0.25], t(17) = 5.37, p<0.001 | - | - | ns | CI = [2.39 5.49]; t(35) = 5.49; p<0.001 | CI = [197.59 572.36], t(35) = 4.33; p<0.001 | |
| Uninstructed Group | CI = [0.07 0.25], t(17) = 3.60, p=0.002 | CI = [0.12 0.28], t(17) = 5.34, p<0.001 | - | - | CI = [-0.67–0.19], t(17) = –3.81, p=0.001 |
CI = [2.28 4.91]; t(17) = 5.77; p<0.001 | CI = [317.40 672.13]; t(17) = 5.89; p<0.001 | |
| Mediation of current cue contingencies | Path a | a=0.05, p=0.058 | a=0.05, p=0.079 | - | - | ns | ns | n.s. |
| Path b | b=0.13, p=0.007 | b=0.16, p<0.001 | - | - | ns | b=0.01, p=0.004 | b=0.00, p<0.001 | |
| Path a*b | - | - | - | - | ns | n.s. | n.s. | |
| Mediation of original cue contingencies | Path a | - | - | - | - | a=–0.09, p=0.015 | n.s. | n.s. |
| Path b | b=0.13, p=0.006 | b=0.16, p=0.001 | - | - | ns | b=0.01, p=0.006 | b=0.00, p<0.001 | |
| Path a*b | - | - | - | - | ns | ns | a*b=0.01, p=0.065 | |
| Association with expected value based on fits to pain | All participants, controlling for Group | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Instructed vs Uninstructed | - | b=0.24, p=0.03 | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Instructed Group | CI = [0.078 0.51]; t(17) = 2.85; p=0.011 | CI = [0.03 0.42]; t(17) = 2.47; p=0.024 | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Uninstructed Group | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Association with unsigned prediction error | All participants, controlling for Group | b=1.02, p=0.003 | b=0.67, p=0.062 | b=1.61, p=0.004 | b=1.31, p=0.007 | - | - | - |
| Instructed vs Uninstructed | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Instructed Group | - | CI = [0.17 2.59]; t(17) = 2.41; p=0.028 | CI = [0.57 3.40]; t(17) = 2.96; p=0.009 | CI = [0.88 3.77]; t(17) = 3.39; p=0.004 | - | - | - | |
| Uninstructed Group | - | CI = [0.06 1.26]; t(17) = 2.33; p=0.033 | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Instructed vs feedback-driven expected value within Instructed Participants | Instruction vs Feedback-driven EV | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Instruction-based EV | CI = [0.07 0.53]; t(17) = 2.73; p=0.014 | CI = [0.02 0.44]; t(17) = 2.33; p=0.03 | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Feedback-driven EV | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
This table reports results of tests within a priori regions of interest (ROIs) involved in expected value and pain-related signature patterns, the Neurologic Pain Signature (NPS; Wager et al., 2013) and the Stimulus Intensity Independent Pain Signature (SIIPS; Woo et al., 2017). For mediation analyses, trial-level responses (i.e. area-under-the-curve estimates) were extracted and averaged across each ROI or computed as the dot-product between trial estimates and pattern expression for NPS and SIIPS, and then multilevel mediation analyses were evaluated. For regressions with heat intensity, expected value, and unsigned prediction error, we used linear models and one-sample t-tests across beta estimates and contrast maps. See Materials and Methods for additional details and Figure 5—figure supplement 1 for ROI images.