ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2017
High Hypnotizability Impairs the Cerebellar Control of Pain.
Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cerebellar tDCS and pain modulation: a critical integrative and systematic review.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Brain stimulation targets for chronic pain: Insights from meta-analysis, functional connectivity and literature review.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2024Pooled it
- Transcranial direct current stimulation in the management of phantom limb pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (t-DCS) of the Cerebellum on Pain Perception and Endogenous Pain Modulation: a Randomized, Monocentric, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Crossover Study.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2023Trial
- Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (ctDCS) Ameliorates Phantom Limb Pain and Non-painful Phantom Limb Sensations.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2019Trial
- No Association Between Hypnotizability and Basal Ganglia Morphometry.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Exploring the Role of the Cerebellum in Pain Perception: A Narrative Review.Pain and therapy · 2025Review
- Phantom Limb Pain Management.The Journal of hand surgery · 2025Review
- Investigation of Neuromodulatory Effect of Anodal Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on the Primary Motor Cortex Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2024Article
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Attenuates the Chronic Pain of Osteoarthritis in Rats via Reducing NMDAR2B Expressions in the Spinal Cord.Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2023Article
- Physiological Correlates of Hypnotizability: Hypnotic Behaviour and Prognostic Role in Medicine.Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Hypnotisability and the Cerebellum: Hypotheses and Perspectives.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2022Review
- Consensus Paper: Novel Directions and Next Steps of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation of the Cerebellum in Health and Disease.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2022Article
- Is hypnotic assessment relevant to neurology?Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022Review
- Involvement of the cerebellum in migraine.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2022Review
- Hypnotic predictors of agency: Responsiveness to specific suggestions in hypnosis is associated with involuntariness in fibromyalgia.Consciousness and cognition · 2021Article
- Hypnosis-induced modulation of corticospinal excitability during motor imagery.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Pearls and pitfalls in brain functional analysis by event-related potentials: a narrative review by the Italian Psychophysiology and Cognitive Neuroscience Society on methodological limits and clinical reliability-part I.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020Review
- Methods and strategies of tDCS for the treatment of pain: current status and future directions.Expert review of medical devices · 2020Review
- Association of hypnotizability and deep sleep: any role for interoceptive sensibility?Experimental brain research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the general population, transcranial anodal direct current stimulation of the cerebellum (ctDCS) reduces pain intensity and the amplitude of nociceptive laser evoked potentials (LEPs), whereas cathodal ctDCS elicits opposite effects. Since behavioral findings suggest that the cerebellar activity of highly hypnotizable individuals (highs) differs from the general population, we investigated whether hypnotizability-related differences occur in the modulation of pain by ctDCS. Sixteen healthy highs (according to the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, form A) and 16 participants not selected according to hypnotizability (controls) volunteered to undergo laser nociceptive stimulation of the dorsum of the left hand before and after anodal or cathodal ctDCS. LEPs amplitudes and latencies and the subjective pain experience (Numerical Rating Scale) were analyzed. Smaller LEP amplitudes and longer latencies were observed in highs with respect to controls independently of stimulation. After anodal and cathodal cerebellar stimulation, controls reported lower and higher pain than before it, respectively. In contrast, highs did not report significant changes in the perceived pain after both stimulations. They increased significantly their N2/P2 amplitude after anodal ctDCS and did not exhibit any significant change after cathodal tDCS, whereas controls decreased the N1 and N2P2 amplitude and increased their latency after anodal cerebellar stimulation and did the opposite after cathodal ctDCS. In conclusion, the study showed impaired cerebellar pain modulation and suggested altered cerebral cortical representation of pain in subjects with high hypnotizability scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26846218What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.