Talk:Nociception

Lead

Adjust lead to say 'conducts sensation to brain' and remove spinal cord? Spinal cord may be part of the CNS but it doesn't think, so how can it experience pain? It would only conduct. That's my thinking, agree/disagree? WLU (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with removal. The word "sensation" here is being used in a technical/jargon way - it refers to non-conscious activity in nerves (that will/may later enter consciousness). (The spinal cord is involved in some processing of the data being carried.)

"Experience", in the field of pain, is subjective and takes place in consciousness. The brain, while being the physical location, is not refered to as the experiencer of subjective consciousness. "Sentient being" and mind are 2 other places where experience is said to occur.

A lot of nociception occurs without any conscious experience. As [Nociceptor] says "Nociception can also cause generalized autonomic responses before or without reaching consciousness to cause pallor, diaphoresis, bradycardia, hypotension, lightheadedness, nausea and fainting.

I would like to find a replacement word for "sensation" in the article/lead that allows a naive reader to appreciate the non-conscious nature of nociception. SmithBlue (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We need an updated definition of nociception rather than one buried in a 25-year-old text focused on human-experienced pain. The contentiousness of the issue of pain in invertebrates has a fundamental basis in the spinal cord not being required for nociception, and this is supported even by most arguments by analogy. It's even referenced in this very article under the non-mammalian animals header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.98.172.193 (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

History of terms

Anyone have info on the origins of "physiological pain"? SmithBlue (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I'm assessing this now, partly on the basis of what I expect it to be when we're done. If you disagree, then we can reassess it next month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Simpler Explanation?

Would someone who understands this subject add a layman's explanation?

  > I'd say "how the nerves process pain," 'noxious  stimuli' being pain.

Not to say I understand the subject. 209.212.5.43 (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I was told by an oral surgeon that nociception is a "nerve ending encoding that tells the brain where the pain is (has) originated from". (Sort of like an internet IP address). The subject came up when discussing "referred pain" where another tooth seems to hurt, but instead the pain is from an adjacent (above, below, next to) tooth, disguising the actual tooth causing the pain. He went on to say that the teeth in the human (mouth) are lacking the nociception encoding and hence the brain has difficulty mapping the pain to the exact tooth actually causing the pain.

Furthermore, the "gating" talk about in the article is used by dentists when injecting anesthetic along side of the inside cheek. By tugging in a rapid and fluttering manner, the nerves are temporarily confused or shut off, and the needle puncture cannot be felt by the patient when done properly.Bcwilmot (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/nociceptive ˌnō-si-'sep-tiv\

Hopefully an editor can add this in the text. 209.212.5.43 (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Male vs female pain

I heard that females are more tolerant to pain than men, because men have more pain receptors. It's linked to the Y chromosome. Is this true?Dbjorck (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I copied your question to the science reference desk because it's more likely to get noticed there, and article talk pages are only meant to be used for discussing proposed changes to the article, per our talk page guideline. I hope someone there can help. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Chemical stimulation" seems incorrect

In section "Transmission through central nervous system", subsection "Paleospinothalamic tract", there's the sentence:

"Slow pain is stimulated by chemical stimulation, is poorly localized and is described as an aching, throbbing or burning pain."

Yet at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus_%28physiology%29#Chemical "chemical stimulation" seems reserved for senses which detect chemicals, namely smell and taste. That doesn't seem to fit this page's usage.

Further, the reference given for this statement, "Pain Pathway" seems like someone's personal web page. Gwideman (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gwideman! I have now removed the sentence. Lova Falk talk 08:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

New section System overview

Have placed this at the end of the page before Clinical significance. This section was recently added by a new editor who clearly hadn't looked into the Wiki guidelines. The references provided are not entered up correctly and some may not even be suitable; there is a repetition of certain bits of information; there is a lot of content completely uncited; the diagram provided is by the editor and there are no refs given to back up the information. Have placed this section further down, still keeping the heading but treating it more as a summary. The section is in real need of attention. Hardly any links are provided and it is quite badly written up. But there may be useful content to retrieve. Let's see if it can be made good. Or it may be felt that it should be removed for improvement first as before the addition the page was B rated. --Iztwoz (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Odd Statement

a subjective experience of pain in sentient beings

My guinea pigs aren't sentient but if any of the listed things happened to them, they'd experience pain! Most invertebrates probably don't experience pain, they lack the physical and mental equipment to do so (starfish don't have brains for example). But even the most primitive vertebrates clearly do experience pain.

So I don't quite understand what the editor means here!

PainMan (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@PainMan: I read this as using the first definition in Wiktionary:

1. Experiencing sensation, thought, or feeling.

Having had many pet guinea pigs in succession, I definitely agree that they aren't intelligent. But that's not what the word means. From the article:

Not to be confused with Sapience.

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

--Thnidu (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Redirection from "Nocifensive"

I am not sure how to edit the page to do this correctly and in a logical way. I was reading an article about rats, in which a statement was made that the degloving of rats tails is a "Nocifensive response". Clicking on the link to Nocifensive, I was redirected to this page. Nociception is highly related, but does not appear to be the same. From the source:

Nocifensor, a term introduced by Lewis (1936; see Lewis 1942; LaMotte 1992 for discussion), describes a system of “nerves” associated with local defense against injury. Nocifensive has since expanded as a term to describe behaviors associated with protection against insult and injury. Nocifensive behaviors are more complex than simple nociceptive flexor withdrawal reflexes, such as the tailflick reflex, and the term is particularly appropriate in the visceral realm, where stimuli considered to be adequate (e.g. hollow organ distension, ischemia, traction on the mesentery) are different from those Sherrington (1906) defined as adequate for activation of cutaneous nociceptors. The nocifensive behaviors produced by visceral stimulation are also considered pseudaffective (Sherrington 1906) (pseudoaffective), because responses to visceral stimulation are organized supraspinally.

I do not have expertise in biology and am unsure of how to proceed. Essentially, as a user and reader, I was confused by the redirection. If someone who wasn't going to do any further analysis clicks "Nocifensive" and get instead, "Nociception", it seems like a reasonable assumption that they are the same phenomena. This seems reasonable, as they are highly related; however, the above quote implies that they should be separate phenomena.

A new page seems unnecessary, and the redirection seems fine. However, I do not understand the content in the above Springer link, and browsing the references is not getting me much further in understanding the distinction they are making. I would like to understand why a textbook wants to draw a distinction between the two, as I'd think anyone seeing the redirect and then searching for the distinction might. I'd think further searching may make this more clear, but I'd have no way to verify the correctness of my understanding.

1. Should another sentence be added to the general area, something to the effect of "Nocifensive responses are a related phenomena in which..."

2. Should there be a new section added to this page?

3. Can someone with subject matter weight in? is this question pedantic to someone who understands these concepts? Am I requesting a reasonable edit? Is the page on rats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat) incorrect, and my understanding of nociception is incorrect?

Edited to link to to the source corectly. I cleaned my grammar to be less repetitive and more concise. Sorry it took me three tries to do it right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borlash (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. Typically, nocifensive refers to the behaviour arising from a nociceptive stimulus as opposed to nociception per se (simple withdrawal response all the way to a complex behavioural response with affect (emotions, feelings) etc, typically something hot then a withdrawal response etc rather than whatever they've written there. I think the redirect is probably okay. The state of the article itself is quite bad, but that's something we need to get round to fixing. PainProf (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

References