Hubbry Logo
DolorimeterDolorimeterMain
Open search
Dolorimeter
Community hub
Dolorimeter
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Dolorimeter
Dolorimeter
Dolorimeter
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Dolorimeter
Purposemeasure pain threshold of an individual

A dolorimeter is an instrument used to measure pain threshold and pain tolerance. Dolorimetry has been defined as "the measurement of pain sensitivity or pain intensity".[1] Dolorimeters apply steady pressure, heat, or electrical stimulation to some area, or move a joint or other body part and determine what level of heat or pressure or electric current or amount of movement produces a sensation of pain. Sometimes the pressure is applied using a blunt object.

History

[edit]

In 1940, James D. Hardy, Harold G. Wolff and Helen Goodell of Cornell University introduced the first dolorimeter as a method for evaluating the effectiveness of analgesic medications.[2] They did their work at New York Hospital. They focused the light of a 100 watt projection lamp with a lens on an area of skin that had been blackened to minimize reflection. They found that most people expressed a pain sensation when the skin temperature reached 113 °F (45 °C). They also found that after the skin temperature reached 152 °F (67 °C), the pain sensations did not intensify even if the heat were increased. They developed a pain scale, called the "Hardy-Wolff-Goodell" scale, with 10 gradations, or 10 levels. They assigned the name of "dols" to these levels.[3][4] Other researchers were not able to reproduce the results of Hardy, Wolff and Goodell, and the device and the approach were abandoned.[5] Harvard Medical School Professor and Massachusetts General Hospital anaesthetist Henry K. Beecher (1957) expressed skepticism about this method of measuring pain.[6] In 1945, Time reported that Cleveland's Lorand Julius Bela Gluzek had developed a dolorimeter that measured pain in grams.[7] Gluzek stated that his dolorimeter was 97% accurate.[8]

Palpometer

[edit]

A dolorimeter known as the Sonic Palpometer was developed at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. Patents have been applied for worldwide.[9] The Sonic Palpometer uses ultrasound and computer technology to automate the physician's technique of palpation to determine sensitivity of some part of the patient's body.

The related pressure controlled palpometer (PCP) uses a pressure-sensitive piece of plastic film to determine how much pressure is being applied in palpation. This technique appears to be more reliable than unaided palpation.[10]

Algorimeter and other methods

[edit]
FDK 20 Wagner algometer

Techniques using lasers

[edit]

Svensson et al. (1997) describe the use of a CO2 laser or a contact thermode to heat the skin and elicit a pain response.[11]

A laser-based dolorimeter called a Dolorimeter Analgesia meter is marketed by IITC Life Sciences.

Techniques using heat lamps

[edit]

Another pain measurement device uses heat from a 500 watt incandescent heat lamp which is delivered to a small area of skin.

Other dolorimeters

[edit]
  • Björnström's algesimeter measures sensitivity of the skin to pain.
  • Boas' algesimeter measures sensitivity over the epigastrium.
  • The AlgiScan, used for measuring the analgesia level in patients during anesthesia, quantifies within seconds the reflex papillary dilatation[clarification needed] through an integrated nociceptive stimulator.[clarification needed][12]

Other terms for similar instruments include algesiometer, algesichronometer (which also takes time into consideration), analgesia meter, algometer, algonometer, prick-algesimeter, pressure-algometer.[citation needed]

Dolorimetry for animals

[edit]
Main article: Pain in animals

Dolorimetry in animals involves application of pain to various body parts. It is occasionally used as a diagnostic tool, and routinely used in basic pain research and in the testing of analgetics.

Tail

[edit]

Paw

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Dolorimeter

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A dolorimeter is a designed to measure an individual's threshold—the minimum intensity of a stimulus required to elicit a of —and , the maximum level of painful stimulus that can be endured, typically through the controlled application of , pressure, or electrical stimulation to specific body areas while the subject reports their sensations. The concept gained prominence with the Hardy–Wolff–Goodell dolorimeter, invented in 1940 by physiologist James D. Hardy, neurologist Harold G. Wolff, and pharmacologist Helen Goodell at Medical College, which utilized a radiant heat lamp to deliver standardized stimuli to the forehead skin, raising its temperature to approximately 45–47°C to reach the threshold. This device quantified intensity on a scale of "dols," where one dol represented the threshold sensation equivalent to a 0.1-second exposure producing a just-perceptible from the source, allowing for gradations up to 10.5 dols for intolerable . Originally developed to standardize assessment in laboratory settings, it facilitated early clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of analgesics like by comparing pre- and post-drug responses in controlled groups. Over time, the dolorimeter's influence extended to broader psychophysical on , though it faced in the 1950s from anesthesiologist , who argued that individual variability and psychological factors undermined its objectivity, contributing to a decline in its routine use by the as subjective scales and advanced imaging techniques emerged. Contemporary dolorimeters, often resembling algometers, primarily employ mechanical pressure via a standardized probe (typically 1 cm² in area) applied to sites like the or , measuring force in pounds or kilograms until is reported, and are used in clinical evaluations of conditions such as , neuropathy, and disorders. These tools remain valuable for into modulation, though they are not without limitations, as perception varies by factors including age, sex, and cultural background.

Introduction

Definition and Purpose

A dolorimeter is an instrument designed to measure pain threshold, defined as the minimum stimulus intensity at which a sensation is perceived as painful, and , defined as the maximum stimulus intensity that an individual can endure before pain becomes intolerable. The primary purpose of the dolorimeter stems from its development as a means to provide objective, quantifiable metrics for pain sensitivity, which has historically facilitated the evaluation of pain pathways, the diagnosis of pain-related disorders, and the testing of efficacy in controlled settings. In , it has been instrumental in assessing the effectiveness of pain-relieving drugs by standardizing stimulus application and response measurement. Clinically, it aids in identifying conditions involving altered pain perception, such as (heightened pain sensitivity) or hypoalgesia (reduced pain sensitivity), exemplified by its application in evaluating , where pressure algometry detects central sensitization, and in neuropathy, where it measures pressure pain thresholds to characterize profiles. Pain quantification with a dolorimeter typically employs arbitrary units tied to the , such as intensity measured in millicalories per second per square centimeter (mcal/s/cm²) for radiant applications, or integrates subjective ratings via standardized scales like the visual analog scale (VAS) to correlate device output with perceived intensity.

Basic Principles

Dolorimetry, the quantitative assessment of pain sensitivity, is grounded in the physiological activation of nociceptors, which are specialized sensory receptors that detect potentially harmful stimuli. These receptors respond to mechanical, thermal, or chemical inputs by generating action potentials that propagate through primary afferent neurons to the , eliciting either reflexive withdrawal behaviors or subjective perceptions of . In dolorimetric procedures, controlled application of such stimuli allows for the measurement of pain responses, distinguishing nociceptive pathways that protect against tissue damage from non-noxious sensory inputs. A key distinction in dolorimetry lies between pain threshold and . The pain threshold represents the minimal stimulus intensity at which a subject first perceives or reports pain, often detected via an initial verbal acknowledgment or observable like flinching. In contrast, marks the maximum intensity a subject can voluntarily endure before requesting cessation, reflecting both physiological limits and psychological factors such as or anxiety. This differentiation enables precise evaluation of sensory detection versus endurance capacity in experimental settings. Standardization poses significant challenges in dolorimetry to ensure reproducible results across subjects and studies. Calibrated devices deliver consistent stimulus intensities, but variability arises from factors like ambient , which influences sensitivity, and the anatomical site of application—such as the , chosen for its relatively uniform innervation and minimal muscle activity. Protocols emphasize multiple trials at standardized sites to account for intra-subject fluctuations, yet inter-individual differences in density and central processing complicate universal benchmarks. Safety protocols are paramount in dolorimetric research to prevent harm while inducing controlled . Stimuli must be incrementally increased to allow subjects to signal discomfort early, never surpassing tolerance limits to avoid tissue injury or psychological distress. Subjects retain full control to terminate the procedure at any time, aligning with ethical standards that prioritize and minimal risk. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) mandates these safeguards, ensuring that benefits outweigh potential harms in all human studies.

History

Early Developments

The origins of dolorimetry trace back to late 19th-century efforts to quantify sensory thresholds, building on psychophysical principles established by pioneers like and . Early attempts focused on qualitative assessments of tactile and pain sensitivity, evolving toward more precise tools. A seminal development was the von Frey hairs, invented by German physiologist Max von Frey in the 1890s, which used calibrated animal or human hairs of varying diameters to probe cutaneous sensitivity to touch and pain spots on the skin. These filaments allowed for the mapping of "pain spots" by applying graduated pressure until a painful sensation was elicited, marking a shift from purely descriptive methods to rudimentary quantitative probes in clinical . In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, clinicians advanced these foundations through systematic mapping of cutaneous pathways. British neurologists Henry Head and William Halse Rivers conducted groundbreaking studies in 1903, analyzing the recovery of sensation after section in Head's own arm, which distinguished protopathic (crude and temperature) from epicritic (fine touch) systems and highlighted regional variations in sensitivity. Concurrently, basic algesimeters emerged for measuring pressure-induced thresholds, with devices like Aly's algesimeter—a retractable needle instrument for testing fine or touch sensitivity—developed in around 1875–1900 to apply controlled mechanical force to the skin. These tools, introduced in the in various forms, enabled early estimations of pressure thresholds by recording the force at which subjects reported discomfort, laying groundwork for standardized sensory testing. By the 1930s, research transitioned toward incorporating thermal stimuli, reflecting growing interest in objective pain metrics within . Physiologist James D. Hardy, along with Helen Goodell and Harold G. Wolff at , conducted experiments using radiant heat to evoke controlled responses, determining thresholds based on rather than intensity alone. These studies formalized early dolorimeter concepts by quantifying as a reproducible sensory event, influencing subsequent device designs. However, early tools suffered from inherent limitations, including heavy reliance on subjective verbal reports from participants, which introduced variability, and a lack of uniform protocols across experiments, leading to inconsistent thresholds and reproducibility issues.

Mid-20th Century Advancements and Decline

In 1940, researchers James D. Hardy, Harold G. Wolff, and Helen Goodell at Medical College developed the Hardy-Wolff-Goodell dolorimeter, marking a significant advancement in quantitative measurement. This device employed radiant heat from a 1000-watt projection lamp focused through an iris diaphragm onto a blackened area of the subject's , allowing precise control of intensity to elicit thresholds. The stimulus was calibrated to avoid tissue damage while producing reportable , with intensity quantified in "dol" units—a psychophysical scale where one dol equaled one (JND) in sensation, and 10 dols represented the maximum tolerable just below the threshold for second-degree burn. This provided a standardized tool for dolorimetry, bridging subjective reports with objective and enabling reproducible assessments of sensitivity. From the through the early , the dolorimeter achieved peak adoption as the gold standard for evaluating analgesics in , particularly at Cornell where the inventors refined protocols for double-blind trials. It was used in numerous experiments on pain modulation and was instrumental in establishing dose-response relationships for drugs like and aspirin by measuring reductions in pain threshold or intensity in dol units. The device's reliability in controlled settings supported its integration into pharmaceutical development, offering a quantifiable endpoint for that surpassed earlier qualitative methods and influenced post-World War II analgesic testing standards. The dolorimeter's prominence began to wane in the early 1950s following criticisms from anesthesiologist , who argued that individual variability, psychological factors, and contextual influences undermined the objectivity of the dol scale and pain threshold measurements. By the 1960s, it had largely declined in routine use, supplanted by methodologies emphasizing subjective patient reports and later by techniques for objective assessment. Ethical concerns over inducing pain, even non-damaging stimuli, also contributed to its . Despite its decline, the dolorimeter left a lasting legacy in regulatory science, shaping U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for approval through the 1990s by emphasizing measurable pain relief endpoints in clinical trials. Its contributions to validating effects and drug mechanisms informed subsequent frameworks for pain research, underscoring the value of multimodal assessment even as ethical and technological shifts evolved the field.

Human Dolorimetry Methods

Mechanical Techniques

Mechanical techniques in human dolorimetry primarily involve pressure algometers, also known as palpometers, which are handheld devices designed to apply graduated pressure through a to quantify muscle or thresholds. These instruments typically feature a 1 cm² rubber tip or similar to ensure consistent contact area during assessment. A specific variant, the spring-coil palpometer, uses an adjustable mechanism with a signaling pin to indicate when target pressure levels (such as 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 kg) are achieved, enhancing precision over manual . In operation, the examiner first identifies a sensitive site through light , then applies increasing at a standardized rate, often 1 kg/s, until the patient reports the onset of pain, defining the pressure pain threshold (PPT). Common assessment sites include the and temporalis muscles, where thresholds are recorded in units of kg/cm² to account for the probe's contact area. For instance, normal PPT values in these muscles range from approximately 3.7 to 5.4 kg/cm² in healthy adults, though this varies by individual factors. These devices find key applications in diagnosing myofascial pain syndromes by identifying hyperirritable trigger points in taut muscle bands, where lowered PPT indicates localized tenderness. In research, pressure algometers assess tender points across standardized sites, such as the 18 American College of Rheumatology-defined locations, to evaluate widespread pain sensitivity and monitor treatment responses. Advantages of mechanical techniques include their simplicity, portability, and ability to provide objective, quantifiable on sensitivity, facilitating reliable comparisons in clinical and settings. The palpometer, in particular, demonstrates low test-retest variability and superior accuracy compared to manual methods, with (p < 0.004). However, limitations persist, including operator variability in pressure application rate and probe placement, as well as influences from anxiety or anticipation, which can elevate perceived thresholds and affect reproducibility. Additionally, excessive pressure may induce prolonged , underscoring the need for careful threshold monitoring.

Thermal and Radiant Techniques

Thermal and radiant techniques in dolorimetry primarily involve controlled application of or to the skin to evoke and quantify nociceptive responses, focusing on thresholds for detection and tolerance. These methods target nociceptors, particularly unmyelinated C-fibers for sustained and Aδ-fibers for initial sharp sensations, allowing assessment of without mechanical interference. Radiant dolorimeters, evolving from the seminal Hardy-Wolff-Goodell apparatus introduced in the , utilize non-contact lamps to deliver precise stimuli to the skin surface, often the or hand. This device projects a focused beam of radiant , ramping up to elicit a , with threshold determined by the latency to response, typically ranging from 3 to 10 seconds depending on intensity. Modern iterations, such as the beam dolorimeter, refine this approach with automated intensity control and portable designs for repeated clinical testing, maintaining the core principle of non-invasive stimulation to measure cutaneous . Contact heat methods employ thermodes—flat probes heated via Peltier elements and applied directly to the skin at temperatures between 45°C and 50°C—to induce localized nociception. These stimuli preferentially activate C-fibers, producing a slow-rising, burning pain sensation that persists after stimulus offset, enabling quantification of heat pain thresholds through verbal ratings or reflex measures like skin conductance changes. The method's precision in controlling ramp rates (e.g., 2–5°C/s) facilitates evaluation of temporal summation and central sensitization, with thresholds often around 46–48°C in healthy individuals. Cold-induced techniques, often termed algorimetry, apply cooling stimuli such as packs, cold metal rollers, or thermodes cooled to 0–15°C to assess hyperalgesia and . Endpoints are determined via subjective verbal reports of onset or objective timing of withdrawal reflexes, with immersion in water (e.g., 5°C) used for broader tolerance testing. These approaches reveal heightened sensitivity in conditions involving Aδ- and C-fiber dysfunction, where even mild cooling evokes paradoxical burning . In clinical settings, thermal and radiant techniques are integral for diagnosing and monitoring thermal allodynia in peripheral neuropathies, such as diabetic or chemotherapy-induced variants, by comparing affected and contralateral sites. Standardization follows International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) protocols within quantitative sensory testing frameworks, ensuring reproducible baselines (e.g., heat pain threshold at 45–50°C) and facilitating longitudinal tracking of treatment efficacy.

Advanced and Other Methods

Laser-evoked potential (LEP) dolorimeters utilize short, high-intensity laser pulses to selectively activate nociceptive Aδ fibers in the skin, providing an objective measure of pain processing through brain responses recorded via (EEG). Typically, CO2 lasers with wavelengths around 10.6 μm or lasers at 488-514 nm deliver radiant heat pulses of 5-20 ms duration and spot diameters of 2-5 mm, evoking pricking pain sensations that correspond to first pain mediated by Aδ fibers. The resulting LEPs consist of distinct components such as the N2-P2 complex, with amplitudes and latencies reflecting central nociceptive pathway integrity; for instance, reduced N2-P2 amplitudes indicate antinociceptive effects from analgesics like , which can decrease responses by approximately 50%. This method offers superior specificity for nociceptive assessment compared to subjective reports, enabling precise evaluation in clinical settings like diagnosis. Electrical stimulation techniques, often variants of (TENS), apply controlled currents to determine thresholds by gradually increasing intensity until the subject reports onset. These systems deliver biphasic pulses through surface electrodes on the skin, with typical parameters including currents ramped from 0 to 50 mA and frequencies of 50-100 Hz to mimic Aδ and C-fiber activation without tissue damage. thresholds are quantified as the minimal current eliciting a painful sensation, providing a reproducible metric for conditions like , where thresholds may elevate significantly in affected patients. Unlike mechanical methods, electrical dolorimetry allows rapid, noninvasive testing and integration with psychophysical scaling for tolerance assessment. Chemical methods involve intradermal injections of agents like or to induce localized and assess response dynamics, particularly in studies of and . , at doses of 0.1-1 μg, activates receptors on C-fibers, producing burning that peaks within minutes and expands into secondary zones measurable by pinprick or brush stimuli timing. injections (1-10 μg) similarly evoke itching and via H1 receptors, with response latency and intensity used to quantify mast cell-mediated . These approaches are valuable for modeling inflammatory states, revealing dose-dependent increases in ratings and allodynic areas that persist for hours post-injection. Emerging quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocols integrate multiple stimulus modalities—such as , mechanical, vibratory, and electrical—into a standardized battery to profile somatosensory function and pain sensitivity comprehensively. Developed by the German Research Network on , QST employs psychophysical paradigms to measure detection and pain thresholds across 13 parameters, identifying patterns like thermal hyperalgesia or indicative of peripheral or central . Compared to single-modality older tools, QST enhances precision by classifying patient-specific pain phenotypes, predicting treatment responses (e.g., poor outcomes in high temporal summation cases), and supporting personalized analgesics with normative data from large cohorts. Its multimodal nature reduces subjectivity, offering a robust framework for phenotyping in clinical trials.

Animal Dolorimetry Methods

Tail Flick and Withdrawal Tests

The is a widely used behavioral in animal dolorimetry to assess acute in , particularly rats and mice. Developed by D'Amour and Smith in 1941, the method involves gently restraining the animal and applying a focused beam of radiant heat to a specific point on the tail, typically using an automated device that projects light to achieve a controlled rise. The primary measure is the tail flick latency, defined as the time from heat application to the reflexive flick or withdrawal of the tail, which normally ranges from 2 to 6 seconds under baseline conditions. A variant of the is the tail withdrawal immersion assay, where the distal portion of the 's is immersed in a bath maintained at 48–52°C. This method records the latency until the animal withdraws its from the hot , providing a measure of spinal nociceptive reflexes similar to the radiant heat version but with more uniform heat distribution. Baseline latencies in this test typically fall between 1 and 5 seconds, depending on the exact temperature and strain of . These tests are primarily applied in preclinical screening of compounds, especially opioids, to evaluate their in modulating acute responses in models. For instance, they have been instrumental in studying agonists like , where increased tail flick or withdrawal latencies indicate antinociceptive effects, facilitating research into mechanisms of analgesia and tolerance development. Standardization of both tests employs automated dolorimeters, such as those from Ugo Basile or IITC, which precisely control stimulus intensity, location on the , and duration to ensure reproducibility across experiments. Ethical protocols mandate a maximum latency—often 10–15 seconds for and 10 seconds for immersion—to automatically terminate the stimulus and prevent thermal burns or tissue damage, with animals habituated to restraint beforehand to minimize stress. Factors like ambient , tail skin condition, and age or sex are controlled to avoid variability in responses.

Paw Pressure and Hot Plate Tests

The paw pressure test, also known as the Randall-Selitto test, involves applying gradually increasing mechanical to the inflamed hind paw of a , typically a , using a specialized analgesy-meter until the animal exhibits a withdrawal response or vocalization, with the nociceptive threshold measured in grams of . This method specifically targets mechanical in models of inflammatory , where baseline thresholds in untreated paws often range from 200-300 grams, decreasing significantly post-inflammation. Developed in 1957, it remains a standard for evaluating the efficacy of analgesics, particularly non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), by quantifying the reversal of reduced tolerance. The test assesses by placing a on a heated metal surface maintained at 52-55°C, recording the latency from placement to the first hind paw lick, shake, or jump, which reflects supraspinal processing of and typically yields baseline latencies of 10-20 seconds in mice and rats. Introduced in , this behavioral is widely used to screen for central effects, as the response integrates sensory and motivational components of thermal . A cutoff of 30-60 seconds is often imposed to prevent tissue damage, ensuring ethical application in repeated testing. Both tests are prominently applied in inflammatory pain models, such as carrageenan-induced paw edema, where intraplantar injection of carrageenan (1-3% solution, 50-100 µL) produces acute hyperalgesia peaking at 3-6 hours, mimicking arthritis-like conditions and allowing assessment of NSAID efficacy through restored thresholds. For instance, in carrageenan models, indomethacin (10 mg/kg) or ibuprofen (30 mg/kg) administered orally significantly elevates paw pressure thresholds and prolongs hot plate latencies, demonstrating anti-hyperalgesic effects comparable to 50-70% reversal of inflammation-induced sensitization. These assays are particularly valuable for distinguishing peripheral from central mechanisms, with the paw pressure test sensitive to local inflammation and the hot plate test to broader analgesic modulation. A key variation of thermal paw testing is the Hargreaves test, which employs a focused radiant heat source (intensity adjustable to achieve 10-12 second baselines) directed at the plantar surface of the unrestrained hind through a floor, measuring withdrawal latency to isolate unilateral without whole-body heating. Developed in , this method enhances precision in inflammatory models by minimizing stress and allowing contralateral comparisons, often showing 30-50% latency reductions post-carrageenan. It complements traditional use by reducing variability from locomotion and is ideal for longitudinal studies of NSAID interventions.

Other Animal-Specific Approaches

The formalin test is a widely used chemical model of tonic and inflammatory pain in rodents, involving the subcutaneous injection of dilute formalin (typically 1-5% solution) into the hind or other glabrous areas. This induces a biphasic behavioral response: an initial acute phase (0-10 minutes post-injection) characterized by direct activation of nociceptors, followed by a prolonged tonic phase (10-60 minutes) reflecting inflammatory processes and central , with behaviors such as licking, biting, flinching, and guarding of the injected quantified over time to assess intensity and duration. The test's sensitivity to various analgesics, particularly those targeting , has made it a standard for evaluating persistent states, though recent critiques highlight its potential to induce rather than pure . Grimace scales provide a non-invasive, observational method for assessing spontaneous , particularly in postoperative or chronic conditions, by scoring subtle changes in facial expressions without requiring external stimuli. The Mouse Grimace Scale (MGS), for instance, evaluates five action units—orbital tightening, nose bulge, cheek bulge, ear position, and whisker position—on a 0-2 intensity scale per unit, with higher composite scores indicating greater levels, often observed in mice for up to 48 hours following . Developed to refine detection in , these scales correlate well with behavioral and physiological indicators, enabling earlier intervention and reducing reliance on invasive tests. Similar scales have been adapted for rats, rabbits, and other , emphasizing ethological relevance in pain ethograms. Von Frey filaments offer a precise mechanical for detecting , such as , in models, consisting of calibrated nylon fibers applied perpendicularly to the plantar surface of the hind with increasing force until a withdrawal response occurs. The 50% withdrawal threshold, calculated via the up-down method, is typically expressed in grams and drops significantly in models like chronic constriction injury, from baseline values around 10-15 g to 2-5 g post-induction, quantifying mechanical sensitivity without tissue damage. This technique's reliability across rodent strains supports its use in screening neuroprotective or compounds, though electronic variants improve reproducibility by automating force application. Ethical considerations in animal dolorimetry increasingly emphasize the 3Rs principle—Replacement (using alternatives like models), Reduction (minimizing animal numbers through optimized designs), and Refinement (enhancing welfare via less painful methods)—to balance scientific needs with animal well-being, as outlined in foundational guidelines for research involving pain. In pain studies, this drives a shift toward non-invasive techniques, such as (fMRI), which maps pain-related brain activation in or non-human primates without surgical intervention, reducing distress while providing insights into neural circuits. Such approaches not only comply with welfare standards but also yield higher-quality data by avoiding confounds from stress-induced analgesia.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/dolorimeter
  2. https://www.tabers.com/tabersonline/view/Tabers-Dictionary/731543/0/dolorimeter
  3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20423981/
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/pain-threshold
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9122375/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5045473/
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/pain-threshold
  8. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2000-13643-005.html
  9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551562/
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/pain-threshold
  11. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-014-0453-3
  12. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215890
  13. https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/guidelines/ethical-guidelines-for-pain-research-in-humans/
  14. https://nbtltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/37450-275-von-frey-hairs-leaflet.pdf
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9522466/
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342955559_Henry_Head%27s_lifelong_studies_of_cutaneous_sensation
  17. https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co92950/algesimeter-germany-1875-1900
  18. https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_1130588
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088539240400452X
  20. https://www.history.com/articles/history-of-measuring-pain
  21. https://philarchive.org/archive/NIZDTQ
  22. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-86812-2_12
  23. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022034511402997
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/algometry
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3309218/
  26. https://academic.oup.com/painmedicine/article/8/2/147/1847602
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4500021/
  28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3614980/
  29. https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/fact-sheets/allodynia-and-hyperalgesia-in-neuropathic-pain/
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4878893/
  31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3351530/
  32. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2018/6205896
  33. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16949518/
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590010008035
  35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1593488/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3199342/
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2780068/
  38. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pain-research/articles/10.3389/fpain.2021.779068/full
  39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26826097/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5592204/
  41. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/12/4355
  42. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnmol.2017.00284/full
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/tail-flick-test
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4683998/
  45. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3340425/
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3759573/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5396171/
  48. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kangas/files/withey_et_al_2020_pain_models.pdf
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8957662/
  50. https://www.creative-biolabs.com/drug-discovery/therapeutics/formalin-induced-rodent-inflammatory-pain-models.htm
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3276965/
  52. https://nc3rs.org.uk/3rs-resource-library/grimace-scales/grimace-scale-mouse
  53. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035656
  54. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2022.930005/full
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8203948/
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1056871912000469
  57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22575456/
  58. https://nc3rs.org.uk/who-we-are/3rs
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8338837/
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920310065
  61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32655/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.