Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Some brains may be primed for pain
Addiction-related process may keep people hurting long after an injury heals
A+ A- Text Size

Addiction-related process may keep people hurting long after an injury heals

By Laura Sanders

Web edition: July 1, 2012
Print edition: August 11, 2012; Vol.182 #3 (p. 10)

A signal in the brain can predict who will continue to suffer back pain more than a year after an initial injury. This early warning sign could reveal new ways to reverse or prevent pain that lingers long after an injury heals, scientists report online July 1 in Nature Neuroscience.

“We’re very excited about these results,” says study coauthor A. Vania Apkarian of Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. “We think they open up a whole new way of looking at chronic pain.”

The study included 39 people with newish back pain, about half of whom still suffered a full year later. These people’s pain had turned chronic, morphing from the pain associated with the original problem to something more devastating. At the start, pain intensity was similar in people with chronic pain and in those who recovered.

But people whose pain turned chronic had an unusually strong connection between two parts of their brains: the nucleus accumbens and the prefrontal cortex. These two regions behaved in tandem, brain scans revealed, so that when one was busy the other was too. The strength of this connection predicted which participants would have lingering pain a full year later: The stronger the connection, the more susceptible a person was to chronic pain.

“This is something we can study,” says neuroscientist Laura Stone of McGill University in Montreal. “We can figure out how to target this to prevent that transition.”

Earlier studies have catalogued brain differences in people with chronic pain and healthy controls, but researchers never knew whether such differences were the cause of chronic pain or an effect of living with it. This study is the first to uncover a signal that’s present before pain becomes chronic, Stone says.

The study may also link chronic pain development to the brain’s addiction machinery, which includes the nucleus accumbens. “This is certainly part of the addiction pathway,” Apkarian says. Though the idea hasn’t been tested, he says, chronic pain may stem from the brain essentially becoming addicted to pain.

Stone says the concept of pain co-opting the addiction circuitry in the brain makes a lot of sense, but it’s too early to say whether that idea is right.

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

M. Baliki et al. Corticostriatal functional connectivity predicts transition to chronic back pain. Nature Neuroscience. Published online July 1, 2012. doi:10.1038/nn.3153


R. Ehrenberg. Hurt blocker. Science News. Vol. 181, June 39, 2012, p. 22. Available online:
[Go to]

L. Sanders. No pain, healthier brain. Science News. Vol. 179, June 18, 2011, p. 10. Available online: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/74415/title/No_pain%2C_healthier_brain

Comments (6)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • I have chronic pain from Multiple Sclerosis and Arthritis. As far as I'm concerned this is yet another way that people with chronic pain will be derided and marginalized by the medical professions! Already we are called 'crazy' and 'incompetent' and now we will have 'addiction' added to it. Biological explanations of brain connections won't erase the simplification of the terminology to 'addicts'. THANKS researchers for making our medical appointments and treatments THAT MUCH HARDER and FAR more distressing and damaging to already distressed emotions and already marginalized patients.
    El El
    Jul. 2, 2012 at 9:30am
  • This article refers to something called the "addictive process" which does not have any science behind it. Today an addict has far more chance of recovery going to a 12-step meeting than they do relying on science. The endless childish refusal to recognize the mind/body as one, and the history of that mind/body as the source of behavior is a question that is far more interesting than constant referral to fantasy concepts like the "addictive process."
    Frank Harris Frank Harris
    Jul. 2, 2012 at 2:41pm
  • @El: As a neuroscientist I would like to offer a reply to this comment. The simple fact that research is conducted focused on chronic pain shows that these researchers and their funding bodies feel that this is a serious issue. They are working very hard trying to uncover pathways by which the brain encodes pain-signals and persist to do so. In my opinion, the problem you illustrate is not caused by researchers who research reward, pain and addiction. On the contrary the problem lies in the public view of chronic pain and (since it is relevant for this article) addiction. This public view is out of line with the current cutting edge science in the field of pain and addiction research. After decades of progress in neuroscience people with afflictions that stem from the brain are still stigmatized. This seems to be especially true for those afflictions that affect behaviour, like addiction. This is very beautifully illustrated by your own comment: "Already we are called 'crazy' and 'incompetent' and now we will have 'addiction' added to it." Firstly, this is offensive to anybody who suffers from an addiction. Secondly, nowhere in primary literature are patients with chronic-pain called 'addicts'. I can understand a need to 'vent' frustration. However,I hope you realize that you are not doing the researchers who do this type of research any justice. Neither are you appreciating the complexity of how addiction affects the brain and how this might be relevant to your own condition. I would humbly suggest getting more information about both the mechanisms of addiction in the brain and research on chronic-pain so that if medical staff really call you those horrible things (which is by no means justified by the scientific matter!), you will be armed with knowledge. Science is on your side. Just because some people abuse bits and pieces of it to judge and marginalize groups of people (much like you did in your own comment) does not mean you have to do the same.
    Charlotte Brain Charlotte Brain
    Jul. 5, 2012 at 2:35pm
  • @Charlotte, I by no means meant any offense to any person afflicted by the illness of addiction and I believe you have fundamentally mistaken my point. The word 'addiction' is used to deride people constantly, and it makes no statement on a person with this condition - the blame is on those compassion-less people who use the term against others and who often are the very ones charged with caring for people who find themselves vulnerable. I apologize for any language that could be mistaken for what you read into my statement, but that was NOT the intent, or the usage of the term, and even reading my statement again I think you read your own issues into it. The point is and was that all these illnesses are stigmatized, that those who carry these illnesses are marginalized and disrespected on a regular basis, particularly in the press and the privacy of a doctors treatment room where the patient is the most vulnerable. Many articles carry oversimplified messages that deepen the issues, using these buzzwords, like this article seems to, and make the lives of patients, whatever their affliction, more difficult and marginalized than before. Let's take preconceived notions on here... you assumed a lack of education on MY part because I am a patient? The fact that I have a chronic illness makes no statement of educational level or field of study and you have no idea what my background is. I do not question your level of education, and you should never have insulted mine
    El El
    Jul. 6, 2012 at 9:25am
  • @El: I appreciate your reaction to my comment. Please accept my sincere apologies if I judged you to not be aware of the contents of primary research literature, this may have been premature. My main reason for reacting in the way I did was based solely on the content of your post and in no means whatsoever on your personal circumstances. From your statement "THANKS researchers for making our medical appointments and treatments THAT MUCH HARDER and FAR more distressing ..." in particular, I think it was fair to assume that you are therefore not a researcher in this field. Otherwise, why would you insult the work of a hardworking group of people if it is also your own work? By no means do I question your level of education, but merely your (and many others') insight into the role of science on patient welfare. Again, I would like to stress that your views on this are quite explicitly stated in your comment and are therefore open to discussion. I am sorry if my opinion on this part of your first comment is insulting to you.

    More importantly, let me write that I do not disagree with your reaction concerning the use of the word 'addiction'. It is sometimes used to deride people. And in instances where this is in fact done by medical staff like you say, there is absolutely no excuse for this. However, this article we are discussing, like we both know, is a journalist's report of a press release from a research group. These researchers are in no means trying to deride people with the word addiction because they actually know what addiction is in terms of brain physiology. Any person who would use the term to show disrespect to anybody (addict or not) does very obviously not understand what addiction is. Because you seemed to equate 'addiction' to terms like 'crazy' and 'inadequate', I assumed that you were doing the same thing. I see now that I must have misinterpreted your intention with this part of your comment and I apologize if this was insulting to you in any way.

    My main goal with this discussion is merely to try and give an opposing view on the role of neuroscience within the public domain. Do you truly believe that researcher are responsible for the slow adaptation of public beliefs and judgements which are not supported by scientific findings? What do you suggest we should do differently to change this? You seem to suggest that researchers should adapt their communication to suit public views. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't public views ideally, slowly be adapting to established scientific views?
    Charlotte Brain Charlotte Brain
    Jul. 6, 2012 at 3:52pm
  • I would like to add my opinion to the previous exchange...my wife has had severe fibromyalgia for a number of years, and especially early on she truly was marginalized and insulted regarding her condition. However, as more research continues to be done and it is becoming apparent that in many cases an actual physical structure or brain link is involved, it gives validity to our argument that her pain isn't just an over-reaction or necessarily a sign of mental illness. I have shown articles like this to doctors and other medical professionals and it has often changed attitudes (it always pays to do your homework and show you want to learn as much as possible too, and not just leave it to them, as they may not be up on current research). I feel that this sharing of research, even in early stages, does show that the medical community is committed to finding answers. We always have to be hopeful and look for the honest answer, not just what we want to hear.
    RP Luman RP Luman
    Jul. 10, 2012 at 9:22am
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us