Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Cognition and Behavior

Doubling Your Payoff: Winning Pain Relief Engages Endogenous Pain Inhibition

Susanne Becker, Wiebke Gandhi, Saskia Kwan, Alysha-Karima Ahmed and Petra Schweinhardt
eNeuro 25 August 2015, 2 (4) ENEURO.0029-15.2015; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0029-15.2015
Susanne Becker
1Alan Edwards Centre for Research on Pain, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C7, Canada
2Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C7, Canada
3Department of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, 68159 Mannheim, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Susanne Becker
Wiebke Gandhi
1Alan Edwards Centre for Research on Pain, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C7, Canada
2Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C7, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Wiebke Gandhi
Saskia Kwan
1Alan Edwards Centre for Research on Pain, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C7, Canada
2Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C7, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alysha-Karima Ahmed
1Alan Edwards Centre for Research on Pain, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C7, Canada
2Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C7, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alysha-Karima Ahmed
Petra Schweinhardt
1Alan Edwards Centre for Research on Pain, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C7, Canada
4Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C7, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Time line of one test trial of the wheel of fortune game. The green line in the outcome interval indicates pain relief as the outcome of the game, the red line indicates pain increase as the outcome of the game, and the black line indicates no change as the outcome of the game. Thermal stimulation followed the same temperature time course in both the test and the control trials. Instead of playing the game by choosing a color in the button-press interval in the test trials, participants had to press a black button after which the wheel stopped at a random position with no pointer in the control trials. max., Maximum.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Means and 95% confidence intervals of behaviorally assessed pain perception for test and control trials in the pain relief, pain increase, and no-change outcomes. Negative values indicate pain sensitization relative to the beginning of each trial, and positive values indicate habituation. post hoc comparisons: *p < 0.017, significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Means and 95% confidence intervals of perceived pain intensity for test and control trials in the pain relief, pain increase, and no-change outcomes. post hoc comparisons: **p < 0.003, *p < 0.017, significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Correlation of participants’ scores on the novelty-seeking subscale of the TCI and pain modulation by pain relief obtained by winning, which was calculated as the difference between intensity ratings in the test minus the control trials of the pain relief outcome.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Mean amplitudes and 95% confidence intervals of skin conductance responses in the test and control trials in the pain relief, pain increase, and no-change outcomes. post hoc comparisons: t*p < 0.10; **p < 0.003 after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1:

    Summary of statistical analyses

    Data structureType of testPower
    aNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect1
    bNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison1
    cNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison1
    dNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect0.09
    eNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect0.90
    fNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, interaction0.05
    gNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison0.84
    hNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison0.30
    iNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison0.84
    jNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect0.97
    kNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, interaction0.19
    lNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison1
    mNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect1
    nNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect0.71
    oNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, interaction1
    pNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison0.30
    qNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison1
    rNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison0.05
    sNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect1
    tNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect1
    uNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, interaction1
    vNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison1
    wNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison1
    xNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison0.06
    yNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison0.06
    zNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect=1
    aaNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect0.50
    abNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, interaction0.97
    acNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison1
    acNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect1
    adNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect1
    aeNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, interaction1
    afNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison1
    agNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison1
    ahNormally distributedPearson correlation0.26
    aiNormally distributedPearson correlation0.91
    ajNormally distributedPearson correlation0.19
    akNormally distributedPearson correlation0.11
    alNormally distributed after transformationRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect1
    amNormally distributed after transformationRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison1
    anNormally distributed after transformationRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison1
    aoNormally distributed after transformationRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison0.08
    apNormally distributed after transformationRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, main effect1
    aqNormally distributed after transformationRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, interaction1
    arNormally distributed after transformationRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison1
    asNormally distributed after transformationRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison0.71
    atNormally distributed after transformationRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison0.99
    auNormally distributedRepeated-measures mixed-model ANOVA with covariate1
    • Letters (in the left column) refer to values within the Results section.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 2 (4)
eNeuro
Vol. 2, Issue 4
July/August 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Doubling Your Payoff: Winning Pain Relief Engages Endogenous Pain Inhibition
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Doubling Your Payoff: Winning Pain Relief Engages Endogenous Pain Inhibition
Susanne Becker, Wiebke Gandhi, Saskia Kwan, Alysha-Karima Ahmed, Petra Schweinhardt
eNeuro 25 August 2015, 2 (4) ENEURO.0029-15.2015; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0029-15.2015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Doubling Your Payoff: Winning Pain Relief Engages Endogenous Pain Inhibition
Susanne Becker, Wiebke Gandhi, Saskia Kwan, Alysha-Karima Ahmed, Petra Schweinhardt
eNeuro 25 August 2015, 2 (4) ENEURO.0029-15.2015; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0029-15.2015
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Material and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • motivation
  • pain modulation
  • perception
  • relief
  • reward

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • A Very Fast Time Scale of Human Motor Adaptation: Within Movement Adjustments of Internal Representations during Reaching
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
  • Hsc70 Ameliorates the Vesicle Recycling Defects Caused by Excess α-Synuclein at Synapses
Show more New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • Neck Vascular Biomechanical Dysfunction Precedes Brain Biochemical Alterations in a Murine Model of Alzheimer’s Disease
  • Spontaneous oscillatory activity in episodic timing: an EEG replication study and its limitations
  • Neural Signatures of Engagement and Event Segmentation during Story Listening in Background Noise
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2026 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.