Advertisement

Nocebo Hyperalgesia, Partial Reinforcement, and Extinction

      Highlights

      • We compared continuous and partial reinforcement in producing nocebo hyperalgesia.
      • Nocebo hyperalgesia was established under both reinforcement schedules.
      • Continuous reinforcement produced the strongest nocebo hyperalgesia.
      • Nocebo hyperalgesia failed to extinguish irrespective of the reinforcement schedule.
      • Preventing nocebo hyperalgesia before it is established is an important clinical goal.

      Abstract

      Many studies have found evidence of conditioning-induced nocebo hyperalgesia. However, these studies have exclusively involved continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedules. Thus, it is currently unknown whether nocebo hyperalgesia can result after partial reinforcement (PRF). We tested this using electrodermal pain stimulation in healthy volunteers. Undergraduates (N = 135) received nocebo treatment under the guise of a hyperalgesic. Participants were randomly allocated to CRF, PRF, or control (no conditioning). Conditioning involved surreptitiously increasing pain stimulation on nocebo trials relative to control trials. During training, the CRF group always had the nocebo paired with the surreptitious pain increase, whereas the PRF group experienced the increase on only 62.5% of nocebo trials. In the test phase, pain stimulation was equivalent across nocebo and control trials. PRF was sufficient to induce nocebo hyperalgesia; however, this was weaker than CRF. Nocebo hyperalgesia failed to extinguish irrespective of the training schedule. Additional assessment of expectancies indicated strong concordance between expectancy and nocebo hyperalgesia. Overall, these findings suggest that once established, nocebo hyperalgesia may be difficult to disrupt. PRF may be a novel method of reducing the intensity of nocebo hyperalgesia in the clinic, which may be particularly important given its persistence.

      Perspective

      This study provides novel evidence that partial reinforcement results in weaker nocebo hyperalgesia than continuous reinforcement and that nocebo hyperalgesia fails to extinguish, irrespective of the training schedule. As a result, partial reinforcement may serve as a method for reducing the intensity of nocebo hyperalgesia in the clinic.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Journal of Pain
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ader R.
        Conditioned immunopharmacological effects in animals: implications for a conditioning model of pharmacotherapy.
        in: White L. Tursky B. Schwartz G.E. Placebo: Theory, Research, and Mechanisms. Guilford Press, New York1985: 306-323
        • Ader R.
        • Cohen N.
        Behaviorally conditioned immunosuppression.
        Psychosom Med. 1975; 37: 333-340
        • Amanzio M.
        • Benedetti F.
        Neuropharmacological dissection of placebo analgesia: expectation-activated opioid systems versus conditioning-activated specific subsystems.
        J Neurosci. 1999; 19: 484-494
        • Au Yeung S.T.
        • Colagiuri B.
        • Lovibond P.F.
        • Colloca L.
        Partial reinforcement, extinction, and placebo analgesia.
        Pain. 2014; 155: 1110-1117
        • Benedetti F.
        • Amanzio M.
        • Casadio C.
        • Oliaro A.
        • Maggi G.
        Blockade of nocebo hyperalgesia by the cholecystokinin antagonist proglumide.
        Pain. 1997; 71: 135-140
        • Benedetti F.
        • Amanzio M.
        • Vighetti S.
        • Asteggiano G.
        The biochemical and neuroendocrine bases of the hyperalgesic nocebo effect.
        J Neurosci. 2006; 26: 12014-12022
        • Benedetti F.
        • Lanotte M.
        • Lopiano L.
        • Colloca L.
        When words are painful: unraveling the mechanisms of the nocebo effect.
        Neuroscience. 2007; 147: 260-271
        • Benedetti F.
        • Mayberg H.S.
        • Wager T.D.
        • Stohler C.S.
        • Zubieta J.-K.
        Neurobiological mechanisms of the placebo effect.
        J Neurosci. 2005; 25: 10390-10402
        • Benedetti F.
        • Pollo A.
        • Lopiano L.
        • Lanotte M.
        • Vighetti S.
        • Rainero I.
        Conscious expectation and unconscious conditioning in analgesic, motor, and hormonal placebo/nocebo responses.
        J Neurosci. 2003; 23: 4315-4323
        • Bingel U.
        • Wanigasekera V.
        • Wiech K.
        • Ni Mhuircheartaigh R.
        • Lee M.C.
        • Ploner M.
        • Tracey I.
        The effect of treatment expectation on drug efficacy: imaging the analgesic benefit of the opioid remifentanil.
        Sci Transl Med. 2011; 3: 70ra14
        • Bouton M.E.
        Learning and Behavior: A Contemporary Synthesis.
        Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA2007
        • Cohen J.
        Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
        Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ1988
        • Colloca L.
        • Benedetti F.
        How prior experience shapes placebo analgesia.
        Pain. 2006; 124: 126-133
        • Colloca L.
        • Benedetti F.
        Nocebo hyperalgesia: how anxiety is turned into pain.
        Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2007; 20: 435-439
        • Colloca L.
        • Petrovic P.
        • Wager T.D.
        • Ingvar M.
        • Benedetti F.
        How the number of learning trials affects placebo and nocebo responses.
        Pain. 2010; 151: 430-439
        • Colloca L.
        • Sigaudo M.
        • Benedetti F.
        The role of learning in nocebo and placebo effects.
        Pain. 2008; 136: 211-218
        • Domjan M.
        The Principles of Learning and Behavior: Active Learning Edition.
        5th ed. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA2006
        • Enck P.
        • Benedetti F.
        • Schedlowski M.
        New insights into the placebo and nocebo responses.
        Neuron. 2008; 59: 195-206
        • Fitzgerald R.D.
        Effects of partial reinforcement with acid on the classically conditioned salivary response in dogs.
        J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1963; 56: 1056-1060
        • Geuter S.
        • Buchel C.
        Facilitation of pain in the human spinal cord by nocebo treatment.
        J Neurosci. 2013; 33: 13784-13790
        • Gibson S.J.
        • Helme R.D.
        Age-related differences in pain perception and report.
        Clin Geriatr Med. 2001; 17 (433-456, v-vi)
        • Haselgrove M.
        • Aydin A.
        • Pearce J.M.
        A partial reinforcement extinction effect despite equal rates of reinforcement during Pavlovian conditioning.
        J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2004; 30: 240-250
        • Hermans D.
        • Craske M.G.
        • Mineka S.
        • Lovibond P.F.
        Extinction in human fear conditioning.
        Biol Psychiatry. 2006; 60: 361-368
        • Jenkins W.O.
        • Stanley J.C.
        Partial reinforcement: a review and critique.
        Psychol Bull. 1950; 47: 193-234
        • Kimnle G.A.
        Hilgard and Marquis’ Conditioning and Learning.
        Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York1961
        • Kirsch I.
        How Expectancies Shape Experience.
        American Psychological Association, Washington1999
        • Kirsch I.
        Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behaviour.
        Am Psychol. 1985; 40: 1189-1202
        • Kong J.
        • Gollub R.L.
        • Polich G.
        • Kirsch I.
        • Laviolette P.
        • Vangel M.
        • Rosen B.
        • Kaptchuk T.J.
        A functional magnetic resonance imaging study on the neural mechanisms of hyperalgesic nocebo effect.
        J Neurosci. 2008; 28: 13354-13362
        • Levine J.D.
        • Gordon N.C.
        Influence of the method of drug administration on analgesic response.
        Nature. 1984; 312: 755-756
        • Levine J.D.
        • Gordon N.C.
        • Fields H.L.
        The mechanism of placebo analgesia.
        Lancet. 1978; 2: 654-657
        • Lorenz J.
        • Hauck M.
        • Paur R.C.
        • Nakamura Y.
        • Zimmermann R.
        • Bromm B.
        • Engel A.K.
        Cortical correlates of false expectations during pain intensity judgments–a possible manifestation of placebo/nocebo cognitions.
        Brain Behav Immun. 2005; 19: 283-295
        • Pearce J.M.
        • Redhead E.S.
        • Aydin A.
        Partial reinforcement in appetitive Pavlovian conditioning with rats.
        Q J Exp Psychol B. 1997; 50: 273-294
        • Rodriguez-Raecke R.
        • Doganci B.
        • Breimhorst M.
        • Stankewitz A.
        • Büchel C.
        • Birklein F.
        • May A.
        Insular cortex activity is associated with effects of negative expectation on nociceptive long-term habituation.
        J Neurosci. 2010; 30: 11363-11368
        • Stewart-Williams S.
        • Podd J.
        The placebo effect: dissolving the expectancy versus conditioning debate.
        Psychol Bull. 2004; 130: 324-340
        • VanElzakker M.B.
        • Kathryn Dahlgren M.
        • Caroline Davis F.
        • Dubois S.
        • Shin L.M.
        From Pavlov to PTSD: the extinction of conditioned fear in rodents, humans, and anxiety disorders.
        Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2014; 113: 3-18
        • Weimer K.
        • Colloca L.
        • Enck P.
        Age and sex as moderators of the placebo response–an evaluation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses across medicine.
        Gerontology. 2015; 61: 97-108
        • Wiesenfeld-Hallin Z.
        Sex differences in pain perception.
        Gend Med. 2005; 2: 137-145