Under normal conditions, pain arises as a consequence of the activation of nociceptive afferents (small fibers) by an external stimulus with sufficient intensity to potentially cause tissue damage. This peripheral activation is processed as perception of pain by the central nervous system. In order to reliably evaluate the state of the nociceptive system in both clinical and experimental settings, standardized tests are essential. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a set of tests used to measure the intensity of a stimulus that produces a specific sensory perception in a subject. For example, if we gradually apply pressure, the point where the sensation changes from pressure to pain is called the pressure pain threshold. This type of test can be performed with different types of stimuli, including hot and cold stimuli or mechanical stimuli. Although these tests have been shown as reliable in healthy volunteers and pain patients, they are subjective in their nature, since they are based on a conscious evaluation of tested subjects. Likewise, these measures show substantial variability due to differences in the application of the tests by individual examinators. In short, even though the method is quantitative, its methodological characteristics make it subjective and dependent on both the operator and the subject under study. Moreover, contrasting results have been recently found regarding the measurement variability when repeating the QST at intervals of days. Thus, it is essential to investigate and develop new QST alternatives to obtain objective markers that may potentially contribute to the understanding of the mechanisms behind chronic pain conditions.
Under normal conditions, pain arises as a consequence of the activation of nociceptive afferents (small fibers) by an external stimulus with sufficient intensity to potentially cause tissue damage. This peripheral activation is processed as perception of pain by the central nervous system. In order to reliably evaluate the state of the nociceptive system in both clinical and experimental settings, standardized tests are essential. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a set of tests used to measure the intensity of a stimulus that produces a specific sensory perception in a subject. For example, if we gradually apply pressure, the point where the sensation changes from pressure to pain is called the pressure pain threshold. This type of test can be performed with different types of stimuli, including hot and cold stimuli or mechanical stimuli. Although these tests have been shown as reliable in healthy volunteers and pain patients, they are subjective in their nature, since they are based on a conscious evaluation of tested subjects. Likewise, these measures show substantial variability due to differences in the application of the tests by individual examinators. In short, even though the method is quantitative, its methodological characteristics make it subjective and dependent on both the operator and the subject under study. Moreover, contrasting results have been recently found regarding the measurement variability when repeating the QST at intervals of days. Thus, it is essential to investigate and develop new QST alternatives to obtain objective markers that may potentially contribute to the understanding of the mechanisms behind chronic pain conditions. In this regard, evoked potentials (EP) measured by electroencephalography (EEG) are the most commonly used objective alternative for the functional evaluation of small fibers and the spinothalamic tract. Nociceptive EPs can be induced with various stimulation modalities, including lasers (LEP), contact heat (CHEP) and cold (CCEP), intradermal electrical stimulation (IEEP), and mechanical needling (PEP), and each modality has its own advantages and disadvantages. Recently, a novel type of EP has been proposed that is evoked by electrical stimulation in the range of 200 kHz to 3.3 MHz, that is, in the radio frequency (RF) spectrum. At such high frequencies, the nerves and muscles can no longer be electrically excited, and the physiological effects are generated exclusively due to the heating of the tissue. In strictly physiological terms, RF electrical stimuli are similar to those generated by contact heat. Importantly, non-ablative RF technology is safe, relatively inexpensive, and in widespread use in clinics (Beasley \& Weiss, 2014; Lolis \& Goldberg, 2012)- Therefore, the use of RF stimulation could significantly increase the accessibility of EPs as a reference electrophysiological tool for the evaluation of the state of the nociceptive system. Another attractive alternative to subjective evaluation is the EP elicited by sharp mechanical stimuli (pinprick). A device that applies this type of stimulus has recently been developed. It uses a stimulator with a tip similar to that of a blunt needle, which allows obtaining brain responses synchronized with the stimulus and evaluating the state of the spino-thalamic-cortical mechanical sensory conduction pathways. At the Faculty of Engineering of the National University of Entre Ríos (FI-UNER), a prototype was developed that allows it to be carried out in an automated manner, which allows to reduce the uncertainty derived from human subjectivity. In the proposed protocol, the precision of the brain response to RF and mechanical sharp stimuli will be evaluated in two experimental settings. We plan to assess the effect of stimulation intensity on signal parameters, such as EP latency and amplitude. Furthermore, the relationship of these parameters with psychophysical results (questionnaires) and heat thresholds will be explored to investigate the relationship between these variables.
Radiofrequency stimuli will be applied at pain threshold intensity. Arm and leg will be stimulated.
Pinprick stimuli will be administered at varying speeds and forces using an automated device
Oro Verde, Entre Ríos Province, Argentina